User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Archives/Prem Rawat

This page is the talk archives of the Prem Rawat proposal pages.

Proposal 1

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal #2 I've posted revised text at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 2. It includes additional information and tightens up the writing. We can discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Not bad, but Where is the source for this: was discussed in Parliament? Also, why have you removed the other material that is as well sourced as other material you added? Any specific reason, or just a personal preference? I am referring to your replacing this material: The director of the movement's public relations division said that the money was to be used to support the local travel and food expenses of the visitors,[1], and lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables, and that the goods seized did not belong to Rawat for this material: A DLM spokesman said that the money did not belong to Rawat, but had been deposited in the "Divine Bank" by followers in order to pay for local travel and food. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Glad you approve. I'll get the parliament source. the other stuff mostly copy editing. The only substantial part omitted is blaming one of the travellers. The relevance to Rawat was that he was the center of the allegation. Neither he nor the person who took the fall in rone report were prosecuted, so it doesn't seem to have made any difference to the case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I have not approved it, Will. Just commenting that it is not bad. I am not sure why are you brining up an issue of "blame" as the sources do not ascribe "blame" to anyone. FYI, there were two other people that were investigated, these two that carries that suitcase through customs. You have still not answered my question about the reason for choosing one source over the other, and I am awaiting for a straight answer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The parliament source is already there, at the end of the sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by "one source over another" - which source over which? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I cannot find that specific clipping in my collection. Care to make the text available to me? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I've sent it by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Much appreciated. I cannot find a mention of prime minister Gandhi in that clipping, maybe that was in another source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I sent you the clipping that mentioned the parliament. I'll send you the Gandhi clipping too. (I thought the same article had mentioned both, but apparently not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have seen the mention of Gandhi somewhere, but it will be good to add the source for that fact/. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Proposal #3 Merged Proposal 2, with one portion of Proposal 1 as per comments above Removed the "cursed" tidbit that seems to me to be redundant and unrelated to the customs incident being described Added source for last statement Removed material about Gandhi until we find the source ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The tensions between the subject and his mother are an important aspect of the subject's life, and we mention other conflicts. Why delete it from here? You also delete the name of the "Divine Bank" which is mentioned in many accounts. Is it really necessary to say " the director of the movement's public relations division" instead of "a spokesman"? It's very wordy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC) You may have a point or two here, Will. The term "divine bank" does not seem to appear in most of the sources we have. Not sure what value that adds. I will make some corrections to proposal 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Also, the source used (INDEPENDENT, PRESS-TELEGRAM), seems at a cursory glance to be quite tabloidesque in its reporting. What is that source, a local newspaper, a magazine? Do you have it accessible? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The Long Beach Press-Telegram is not a tabloid. As for the "divine bank", it's covered in many sources, far more than those that specify "a necklace" or "the director of the movement's public relations division". I can provde you with some citations: All of (he followers have regular duties in the camp, such as cooking, laundering, folding leaflets or working in such establishments as the 'Divine Bank." where devotees change dollars to rupees at the legal rate of exchange. THE Premies said he was being falsely persecuted, just as Jesus Christ had been. They said the alleged countraband was part of the assets of the mission's divine bank and was being held in safekeeping for the owners, all devotees. According to the guru's disciples, the stash was a Divine Bank that had been put together to support the pilgrims during their month-long sojourn in India. Refusing to buy that story, the Indian government ordered an investigation into the movement's finances and seized the passport of the "prince of peace." A spokesman for the mission said the goods seized belonged to the Divine Light Bank," where all the guru's followeres had deposited their currency and valuables. According to the mission, the goods seized did not belong to the guru but had been deposited with the "Divine Bank" by followers who flew to New Delhi in a fleet of chartered jumbo jets for a religious festival. I can find more if that's not enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I've just noticed another source about Ghandi, which expands significant;y on the nature of her interest. I'll prepare a "proposal #4" to incorporate a sentence about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (amended) Sure. As for the "divine light bank", that could be added. I do not think that they referred to the bank as being "divine", rather, a divine light mission "bank". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I never heard of a "divine bank" but it is entirely possible it was used to describe somebody with some rupes in a bag to swap for dollars. The word divine was tossed around a lot, in a playful way mostly. The humor of the times does not come across very well today. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop. 4 I've added more detail about the investigation and the jewelry. I've sent you the news source. I left it "divine bank" since that seems to be the more commonly-used name ("Divine Health Care Center", "Divine Employment Agency", etc.). Apparently many enterprises were called "divine". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I also trimmed and added material: Lawyers representing the DLM reported that one of the travelers forgot to declare the goods, and that the goods seized did not belong to Rawat. to Secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. . That incorporates two aspects, Apter's and the Indian secretary, and trims a redundant declaration that the material didn't belong to Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Can you send the source that you have summarized as the government asked diplomats to investigate DLM finances in the U.S., U.K. and other countries looking for violations of laws governing foreign assets held by Indian nationals? The material I have relates to communist members of their parliament making such comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ALso, the sources provided do not mention Gandhi at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I sent you the artilce yesterday - "Gifts for a guru". Do you need me to send it again? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Found it, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Prop. 5 Small tweaks to stay closer to the sources. Are we there now, Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) This is awfully wordy: "A senior member of the government reported that diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." Why can't we just say that "Diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." The phrase ""A senior member of the government reported that..." doesn't add much, unless we're trying to say that we find the claim to be dubious. Otherwise it looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Saying "the government" is inaccurate, as we do not know exctly what was asked and who did ask. I will try a shorter version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I'm suggesting dropping "the government" and to use instead, "Diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." Since the preceding sentence refers to the government I think it's clear that the request was official. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) That looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Shall we ask Steve to request an editprotected? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) If so, my talk page is → that way. :D. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) A) Maybe I should have specified with which exact version I agreed. The date of the passport revocation was just removed without comment.[1] It's reasonably clear as edited, but I'd appreciate it if new changes are discussed or a fresh proposal is made. B) Do two editors constitute consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Consensus is based on these editors that chose to participate. As we are in mediation, and proposals are being made and worked on, anypne can comment on the proposals and/or provide their own. Consensus is assessed by lack of strong objections, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Regarding the date for the passport thing, either we say the exact date (which is superfluous, IMO) or simply we state "at the time" which makes it clear that it was at the time of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC) None of the other active editors have been involved in this discussion. Would any editors who changes this text without fresh discussion and consensus be regarded as disruptive, even if they haven't participated here? Consensus usually isn't binding on other editors, but between the probation and mediation perhaps that's changed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) While not binding, all the parties have agreed to the idea I presented. Also, silence, generallu = consensus, if enough time and exposure is given. True, it's an issue (the idea that one would not partake in the discussion, yet raise objections after), but its a possibility. We will come down that road when we get to it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Then let's make sure that each of these proposal gets enough time and exposure so that there won't be any question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'm not consensing, I'm not consensing! :) I am away right now, and do not have time to devote to the project until I return on Monday (already wikibreaking, wikibroken?)but will stick my head in as I can. One quick comment for readability, how important is the Hans Jayanti festival? Is not enough to just say Rawat returned to India for a festival to celebrate his father's birthday? Seems like extraneous material to include a name most people will not know, and I don't see how it would detract from the focus of the proposal by removing it. Having said that, it could just be me that doesn't know about Hans Jayanti, is that the case? Also somewhere, we should explain what a "Divine Bank" is, that reference I do understand, but I think it may be construed in many different ways without some additional context, somewhere. Ohh, time's up, glub glub glub... -- Maelefique (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for commenting. Events surrounding two Hans Jayanti festivals ('72 and '73) are mentioned in the article. While the DLM conducted many festivals, some annually and some ad hoc, the "HJ" appears to have been the most important so it seemed worth mentioning. If there's a strong objection I don't mind dropping it. As for the "Divine Bank", while it's mentioned in several accounts none go into much detail. Can you suggest a different construction? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Re: Rawat, who had surrendered his passport at the time, posted a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country for a planned English-American tour in June 1973. Charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government.[40] [41] This is another examle of the problem of presenting a minor (Rawat still only 15) as the agent of activities requiring the status of legal majority. A 15 year old could neither surrender a passport, nor post a bond. A construction along the lines of "A $13,300 bond was posted in order for Rawat to be able to leave the country for a planned English-American tour in June 1973. Charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government.[40] [41]" would avoid the problem of defining agency.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Good point. Shrunk and White tell us to avoid passive sentences but the reality of encyclopedia writing is that vague statements are the most accurate. Rather than attributing actions or causes to people without proof it's easier to say that "things happened". Who knows who did what, exactly? The more we're precise the less we're accurate, as with all measurements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) If it is assumed 'silence=consensus' please count me out of this from now on. As it happens I am unable to contribute at this time and possibly for quite a while.PatW (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC) DLM article The DLM article has similar content at Divine_Light_Mission#Festivals. Once we have agreement on a version for the main article, we could do a short summary of it and replace the current content at the DLM article, for consistency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC) That content is a summary of what we've got here. The DLM version barely mentions the customs incident. As for arrangements in general- I tried that with the Millennium '73 festival and then an editor came through and inserted a bunch of unnecessary material. If we can get an agreeement from all parties then I'd be interested. But agreements that don't include loose cannons are worthless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC) User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Ready? It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) It was my understanding that the DLM chartered those jumbo jets, as it reads now, it looks as if the followers chartered their own jumbo jets, is that right? Unrelated note: I couldn't come up with a better construction for the "Divine Bank" problem without using up far more words than it's importance would indicate as appropriate. -- Maelefique (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) That's a small change. It had said, "...including 2,500 members from the U.S. who chartered seven jumbo jets for the trip and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams" which I just changed to "...including 2,500 members from the U.S. who traveled on seven chartered jumbo jets and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Works for me. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Only the smallest of items, the proposal says "traveller checks", which are normally referred to as " traveler's checks". Other than that, I'd say I'm happy with proposal 5. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I strongly disagree with this proposal. This is excessive undue weight for an incident that Rawat was not party to and for which the government apologized. The existing material is sufficient.Momento (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Could you point out where there is undue weight? Additionally, plenty of time was given for an alternate proposal to be added, or discussion, but the edit has been made, as I saw no objection, until after the edit was made. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Undue weight is giving undue prominence. As I said above Rawat didn't own the material, Rawat wasn't charged and the government apologized to him. This is a minor incident that was blown out of proportion by the media and is now being blown out of proportion by Wikipedia. It is "guilt by association.", five lines about suspected smuggling has become 13 lines. It is now the largest paragraph in the article. That is undue weight. And yes some time may have been given for alternatives but the choice made by WillBeBack was announced at 9:04, 4 June, relayed to the Prem Rawat talk page 24 hours later and acted on by you in less than 30 minutes. Who had time to object before?Momento (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, Proposal 5 was first started on May 29, 2008, by Jossi. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC) We should all recall the history here. I edited-in a short version of the event, "Prop.0". Jossi wanted more context and so we made a succession of edits resulting in an agreed-upon result. Momento appears to be arguing for using my original text. However since writing that I've learned more about the interest of Ghandi and the international investigation which leads me to believe it is worth the weight we give it in this proposal. This was discussed in Parliament which means it's worth including either here or at DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The history doesn't matter. I can live with Prop 0. The extraneous stuff in the other versions adds nothing that I can see of interest or value. The most important statement for this BLP is "charges were never laid and the government later apologised," and that is getting masked by all the careful listing of jewelry and wristwatches, questions raised in the house, etc. I particularly object to the line in versions 4 and 5 that says two secretaries "took responsibility." This is an insinuaton that there was wrongdoing and that somone took the rap for it. Totally unacceptable. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Can someone please point out to me which of the five proposals (drafts!) you're discussing here? Thanks... Sylviecyn (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 5 Sylvie, unless you'd like to discuss one of the others as an alternate, or create #6. Momento's argument against the material makes a lot of noise, but has no factual basis presented. He says it was a "minor incident blown out of proportion by the media", well if there's a source for that claim, let's have it. If not, this event seems to come up in most books on Rawat, even Downton, who really had nothing to do with that part of his life, mentions it. One pro-Rawat editor wants it fleshed out, one doesn't (but provides nothing concrete to his argument), seems like a bit of a stalling tactic to me. I think any time a government apologizes to someone, that's important enough to mention in a biography (obvious? not obvious?). Regarding the claim that it's the largest paragraph in the article, the article isn't finished, this is where we were starting, so that's a bit of a specious argument. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The current proposal #5 is the result of discussions related to providing context for the incident, and could certainly be tightened as per the concerns raised by Momento and Rumiton. I would appreciate if Momento and or Rumiton present an alternative proposal based on the work available in proposal #5 that could be discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks, it's late here, I will try tomorrow. The problem I keep coming up against is, How long should this article be? When I first got involved the article had just failed a Good Article review, largely on the basis of its being "bloated." Since then it has grown out of all proportion, and there are editors who seem to want it to get even huger. Every claim needs a counter-claim, then a counter-counter-claim for "balance". It is a kind of madness. Can we get some ruling from the GA people on how big an article is justified here? Then we can work back towards something we might even one day be proud of. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, I think that's an example of what not to do. I don't think every claim needs a counter-claim, and those don't need counter-counter-claims. Most articles seem to go as far as "this is what this subject is about" and then a bit about "this is why all that is bullshit", and then it's over. At some point you have to trust in the reader's ability to sort out the data on their own; that they have the ability to comprehend. You don't have to cover everything, or as you say, you'll go crazy trying to cover all the angles and qualify every opinion. Mael-Num (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) None of the assertions in this proposal are "claims". The intent of this material is to plainly summarize the reporting of reliable sources on this matter, using the neutral point of view. If there are counter-assertions, to the effect that these events didn't happen as described, then we can include those too. We already include the denial by the DLM spokesman. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Straw poll Prop 5 Shall we add proposal #5 to the article? Please sign your name under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Support Prop 5 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) The material is important (resulting in high-level interest, extensive press coverage, a prohibition on travelling for six months, and conflict between mother and son), well-researched, and neutrally-presented. Support. -- Maelefique (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. --John Brauns (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. Well-researched and well-written. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Seems OK. An improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Update: see below #Progress --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose Prop 5 Oppose. Undue weight that consists largely of tabloid beat up sourced from the US Army newspaper! Example, Rawat called Hans Jayanti ""the most significant event in human history", it's absurd to claim he would miss it and "curse" his mother. Secondly, where does "charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government" come from? Most sources say charges were never laid. Thirdly, the government apologized, so thirteen lines to describe a mistake made by Indian customs against an innocent Rawat is undue weight, poisoning the well, guilt by association etc. Fourthly and no surprise, any vote will be a simple numbers game along party lines of which the "pro" editors are a small minority.Momento (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Undue weight, Momento said it well. Jayen466 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Counter propose Proposal #6, which keeps the essence of the incident, without WP:UNDUE concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) So you are opposed to adding the text that you drafted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Strongly oppose. As above, we need to be extremely careful of translated material. "Cursing" leaps off the page and is very suspect. If the original Hindi word or phrase she used is available we can look at it, if it seems relevant. I doubt if it is. As Momento said, going into lingering detail of what appears to be a crime is not neutral, even if you eventually say no charges were laid. The "questions raised in the house" and the Prime Minister's "interest" sound like a suggestion of scandal. None of this is NPOV. The whole section needs to be rephrased. I will start now. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Discussion I'm leaning towards support, but before I throw my straw in, a comment an a question. The final line reads:"eventually dropped with apologies". Can we change it to "eventually dropped, with apologies"? Relatively minor, but otherwise it sounds like a proper thing, like "graduated with honors" or "terminate with prejudice". With all the talk of what the wording should be, has anyone double-checked the numbers? I don't have access to all the articles and all the reported facts. Can one (or better, two) people vouch for the numerical facts? Also, glad to see the reported value in pounds sterling removed in favor of the estimated USD value. Looks more consistent that way. Mael-Num (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think anyone would object to adding the comma you mention. As for the numbers, different sources give different numbers. In one case, the value of the suitcase, we give the range or reported values (excluding one that appears to be off by an order of magnitude). In other cases we just pick a number. For example, some sources report five charted jumbo jets, some report six, and at least one reports seven. The number of followers from the U.S. is sometimes reported as 2500 and sometimes as 3000. There are obviously round numbers and neither appears to be definitive. Since those differences don't materially change the story in any way, it seems safe to take one from a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC) You know it's a touchy subject when punctuation can spark a tenacious debate! I don't see any debate, tenacious or otherwise, over the comma. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I'm comfortable with the numbers if you guys are. One other question I had: I believe Momento had asked that the bit where we describe Rawat's "cursing" his mom be removed. I don't remember the exact argument, but I remember it was a pretty convincing one. It does sound a little negative, or at least a little overly dramatic. I think this piece would be just as strong without it. Mael-Num (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Hey lookie, he's saying some of the same thing above. (Trust me, it sounded way more convincing the first time.) Mael-Num (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) !Voting is evil - I have made a request to these editors that think this is too much material for a bio article to make a proposal in which the material is shortened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Voting isn't evil, Voting is a tool - counterpoint. (at least I have a fast learning curve and note that these are both essays and not policy).82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, this isn't a vote. And also, as I know you have been an administrator for many years on Wikipedia, straw polls can be used on occasion when necessary. This is one of those instances. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Can we assume that since Jossi didn't oppose the vote while he stopped to throw out his 1.5 cents worth, that he's not opposed? Or is he just keeping us in suspense? Is this a cliffhanger? (ooh, just like a TV show ending...) -- Maelefique (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Folks can participate (or not) in any way that isn't disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Momento's opposition comment above, none of the sources are tabloids. The Stars and Stripes was just carrying an AP story, we can use another newspaper as the source of record if it makes a difference. I don't see what difference it makes. Note that we use the U.S. Army Handbook for Chaplains as a source and no one has complained about it. The source for "charges dropped with apology" is Downton (see the citation). While the charges were dropped (or never filed) the dispute still happened, it still prevented Rawat from travelling, it was still discussed in Parliament, and was still widely reported. Note that my own original draft is at "Proposal 0" - most of the additional text was added at Jossi's behest. I'd originally been concerned that it was getting too long, but then I found out about the parliamentary debate, Ghandi's interest, and the international investigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Further regarding Momento's comments, line by line: "largely consists of tabloid beat up sourced from the US Army newspaper" - False, there are 7 different citations, 3 are from Stars And Stripes "it's absurd to claim he would miss it and "curse" his mother" - False, it was Mata Ji that said he was cursing, as per source. "where does 'charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government' come from?" - Downton for one. " thirteen lines to describe a mistake made by Indian customs against an innocent Rawat is undue weight" etc etc - If any government ever apologizes to me for anything ever, I want it on my Wikipedia page, definitely! And finally, "any vote will be a simple numbers game", We aren't using the vote to decide anything, it's just one more tool, and maybe, just maybe, a minority view is a minority view because most people don't agree with it. That's consensus. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (ec) Why don't people here give a chance for further proposals? Why the sudden rush? I believe that it is possible to keep the substance of this material without it being the longest paragraph in a biographical article. Note that Proposal 5 was developed by Will and myself, without much input from others until yesterday. As I can see that there are concerns about this proposal's length, why not to continue the good work and shorten it? If no one wants to attempt that, I will, although I would prefer that others take stab at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What rush? The proposal has been there since at least the 28th of last month, it's one paragraph. It was only when we actually went to update the article that certain editors bothered to pay attention to it. On the other hand, I don't think we need to agonize over a few sentences for months either, especially when the information contained within seems fairly straight-forward and well-sourced. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC) This proposal dates back to May 23.[2] A few hours later the editor who wrote it said, "I am still awaiting to close this discussion and this edit to be made."[3] Barely over a day later he asks again, "In any case, I would argue that the proposed edit can be made straight away, and we can then discuss if to add or not to add these sums."[4] This draft has been discussed, mostly by Jossi and myself, openly and amicably. It appeared that there was a consensus for the stable version we drafted together, but at the last moment a couple of editors objected for the first time, out of the blue. So this poll is a way of testing the opinions of editors. Let's see if there's a consensus to add the version that Jossi and I wrote, and have discussed for weeks. If others want to make further changes then this isn't written in stone. We can easily change it again later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I see two editors above opposing the work we have done, Will. As I said, if no one wants to attempt a proposal #6 that addresses their concerns, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If you want to keep working on this that's fine. I think that what we did is good enough to add and better than what's there now. Those are sufficient reasons to add it. Discussions on further changes can continue ad infinitum. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Not really... It should be esay. I will give it a shot and hope that it addresses Jaen and Momento's concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What about the concerns of the six editors who endorse adding the proposal we wrote now? You've been asking over and over again for this to be added "straight away". You now have a consensus to do so. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Agree. But there is no harm in addressing the concerns expressed. As I said, I am now working on a proposal #6. Patience, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC) This poll is on Prop. 5. If you want to create Prop. 6, 7, 8, 9... and then start strawpolls on them then that's for the future. Let's just see if this version, written over weeks and stable for days, has a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree. There is no consensus and this is not a !vote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) We have three editors expressing concerns, and I have taken their concerns into account on the new proposal #6, that may put us through and get the edit done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) So 2/3 of those who've commented approve of adding Prop. 5. Go ahead and start a strawpoll for Prop. 6 and see how much support it gets. I won't support it because it deletes material we've previously discussed belongs in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop.5 is fine except for the final sentence where the issue of agency of minor is a problem - I've created Prop.9 which is Pro.5 with the final sentence amended to address the agency issue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 'Consensus' is a version that all parties can live with. Compromise is necessary, and as one of the two editors that working on proposal 5 alongside you, Will, I am more than willing to work toward a consensus version that all editors could live with ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC) "Tabloid" I find myself confused by the use of the word "tabloid" by some editors. Above, an editor argues in favor of having less material, writing: Undue weight that consists largely of tabloid beat up...[5] He seems to be saying that giving the incident this much space or detail we are being like a tabloid (presumably he means "Junk food news" rather than "compact newspaper format"). However another editor on a different talk page, while aguing for adding more material to this topic, writes: Shortening only if the context is left there intact. This is not a tabloid.[6] That seems to mean that we are being like a tabloid if we don't give the incident sufficient detail. Perhaps "tabloid" isn't a helpful term to use in discussing this issue. It has no real meaning, and is apparently used to argue both sides of a dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Basically, what I understand from the concerns expressed, is that given the outcome of that incident (i.e charges not filed and an apology), the text is way too detailed and unnecessary. Clearly an tabloidesque press (of that time) was making a big deal of something that came to nothing. I can understand that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is the tabloidesque press? Does it include the Stars and Stripes and the New York Times? Is it tabloidesque to add material or to delete it? What, exactly, does "tabloid" mean in these two quotations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I have not argued for deletion of material. I am arguing that the comments made have some merit and need to be taken into account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is the "tabloidesque press" and how is it relevant to this materil? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Read the sources, and you will know what I mean. The tone and content are nothing but sensationalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Never read Stars and Stripes, but the Times is definitely a broadsheet. (I've also heard they're pretty thorough in their research) All jokes aside, Jossi might have a point there, as gurus and their movements were "hot topics" at that point in the 70's. Jossi, maybe you could pull a couple of quotes so we can see what you mean more clearly? Mael-Num (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, I don't see what you mean, please explain. The Times is not a tabloid. None of the quoted sources are tabloids, so far as I'm aware. I don't even know what "tabloidesque" means. It should be defined if editors are going to use it as an argument. It don't see how it can be used as both a justification for adding material and for deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Just because we are talking about the press, I am reminded that press reporting has historically been a problem in this field in all but the very best publications; hence my general reluctance to rely too much on newspaper reports. Here is a quote from a United Nations report on the quality of newspaper reporting on "cults", mentioning in particular the reporting in the United States: 106. As explained by the Special Rapporteur, in several mission reports (Germany E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2; United States of America E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1), the media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light. The Special Rapporteur has recommended starting a campaign to develop awareness among the media on the need to publish information that respects the principles of tolerance and non-discrimination. These measures would also make it possible to educate and shape public opinion in accordance with these principles. The study would therefore identify the role of the media in hatred and religious intolerance vis-à-vis religious minorities, their responsibilities and would recommend preventive measures, including action to be taken under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights advisory services programme. This discussion may not be the ideal place to bring this up, but I was reminded of it by the above and mention it just as something to be borne in mind in general as we're editing these articles. Jayen466 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) No sources are perfect. We use the best we can find. What gets confusing is when the finest newspapers in the world are called "tabloidesque", and when the claim of being "tabloid"-like is used as an argument for both removing and adding the same material. Unless folks can say exactly what they mean by "tabloid" and "tabloidesque" those shouldn't be paraded around as legitimate arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal #6 This version is shorter, keeping the essence of the incident without unnecessary detail. Submitted as an attempt to reach consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Previously, you made a big deal about replacing the vague "jewels" with the more specific "a necklace".[7] Now you replace the details with the even more vague term "valuables". WIf you no longer want the details why not go back to "jewels"? That's more precise than "valuables". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Other important details that have been omitted are the international investigation and the comment by Mata Ji that her son was mad at her for bringing him there. Also, I disagree with the premise of this edit, that the material has undue weight. We are expanding this part of the article and this is the first part of that expansion. Other parts will grow too. This isn't a paper book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) No Will. This approach will not work. We are adding and improving this article, and additions need to be commesurate with the size of the article. The "long" version, can be kept for a later stage. As for no, this long version is way, way too long and unacceptable in the context of the current article's size. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 7 While I appreciate what Jossi's trying to do, I think he might have taken too many valuable details out. I did a bit of copy-editing, changed the seven jumbo jets to several (as was mentioned above, reports vary and the key thing [to me] is the 2500 people...that's a lot of people no matter how many jets they filled and that message carries), and other things that slip my mind at the moment. Mael-Num (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't see how this proposal addresses the concerns expressed by several editors, as it is very much Proposal #5 with minimal tweaks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Could you be more specific? I'm not trying to be difficult...you know me, it's just natural ;) Seriously, though, I saw that Momento posted his concerns, and one was the "Rawat vs Mom" part, and I think that was handled fine. You can see above (or maybe haven't yet seen) that I share his concerns on this. The rest of it looked like a bunch of objections over what is considered "undue weight", which I really don't understand. The gist I got was that Momento and others feel it shouldn't be discussed at all, and honestly, I don't think that's up for discussion. I want to help, though, and I want to be fair, so help me understand what the matter is. Mael-Num (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is your concern about "Rawat vs Mom"? Momento, for one, has made a point of including "Mom" material before,[8][9] so I odn't understand his objection to it here. The tension between Rawat and his mother is one of the important themes in his early life. Here we have her speaking in her own words about her son's communication with her. I think it's a relevant detail that gives context to the eventual rift. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If I heard that someone "cursed their mother", I would likely not think very highly of them. Maybe it's a case of personal or cultural bias on my part, but I think it might add a little too much negative color. Seriously, if you heard this about someone you knew personally, wouldn't you think badly of them? As you say, there is an "eventual rift" in this story...can't we get to that part of the story and let it serve to show the conflict between mother and son? Mael-Num (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) These are not his mother's words, Mataji never learned to speak English. This is someone's translation of something she said in Hindi. When translated words jump off the page like that you need to question the quality of the translation. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, I've heard the word "curse" used by native hindi/urdu speakers when they speak in English, and in similar context to this use, i.e. "expressing strong negative feelings". Why do you think the translation is inaccurate? Mael-Num (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you have, but have you heard an American mum use this word to describe her son's response to her authority? This is my point, the word is clearly much stronger for native English speakers than it is in Hindi. Good translation requires that a word of similar weight be chosen in the target language, not just a "correct" dictionary equivalent. Anyway, we seem to have moved on satisfactorily. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I'd be surprised if any teenaged boy didn't curse about or become angry with his mother in any culture or society, and for more minor reasons. I really don't see the controversy about that statement at all. But, if it's too much for some, then just change it to "was angry with his Mata Ji..." or "Mata Ji said he was angry with her" and please let's move on. Sheesh already! The word "curse" doesn't have to be in the article. Also, I do hope that this is the one and only time that any editors decide to throw a monkey wrench into the works here, by suddenly objecting to a proposal that had already reached consensus. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to delay any of these proceedings if I chose to remain silent, and then I suddenly started paying attention and demanded a delay. It's simply not fair to the editors who have been contributing in good faith to these proposals. There have been multiple notices on the Prem Rawat talk page about these proposals, so there's really no excuse for not contributing sooner, imo. And it would be most appreciated if editors discontinue the practice of referring to realiable sources as "tabloid" or "tabloidesque," when discussing established, reputable sources. The NYTimes isn't a tabloid, nor is the Stars and Stripes," which is a daily newspaper that's been in existence for the U.S. military since the 1940s, and is far from being a tabloid. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 10 I supported Proposal 5, even though I initially felt it was too long, because it covered more than just the customs incident. Proposal 10 covers the same ground. 1972 Hans Jayanti: approx 40 words. If this stands on it own as a notable event, and not just context for a description of the customs incident, then fine, otherwise I suggest shortening it. If it stays, how about placing a minor section break after the information about the festival, so that the remainder of this section is short and tightly focused on the customs incident? Rawat’s Mother: I felt that the conflict between between Rawat and his Mother in version 5 justified this inclusion, but not in version 10 without the ‘cursing’ reference. There should be either a full reference to his mother’s comments or none at all. If we want to cut this down, then I suggest removing the reference to the 1973 tour after posting the bond. The point is that Rawat had to post a bond – not the details of where he was planning to go once the bond was posted. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #10 seems OK to me. The reason for explaining the bond is, IMO, needed as it explains why he had to post it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think it would be terrible if we trimmed down the discussion of why he posted the bond. It should be self-evident: he wanted to travel outside of India. It's nice to have the rest of it, but if the concern is bloat, it might be worth considering. Mael-Num (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Why does P.10 delete reference to the international investigation? Why do we say "valuables" instead of "jewels", the term used by most sources? To me "jewels" is part of the deliberate sensationalism that surrounded this event at the time. The items were "valuables," that's the neutral term. As I recall, none of the newspaper accounts ever reported the fact that no charges were laid, nor the official apology. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) How is this text The 1972 Hans Jayanti, a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[42] reportedly was attended by 500,000 people, including 2,500 who flew to India from the U.S. on seven chartered jumbo jets, and stayed for a month in the DLM's Indian ashrams. (p.10) better than this text: The 1972 Hans Jayanti, a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[33] attracted a reported total of 500,000 attendees, including 2,500 members from the U.S. who traveled on seven chartered jumbo jets and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams. (p.5) I don't see a benefit. I will try to answer these questions as they occur. This could get messy. I think Prop 10 is better, and not for POV reasons, mainly as better writing. "...attracted a reported total of 500,000 attendees" is lousy writing, and the "attendees" thing is redundant. "Members" isn't useful either. They were just people who wanted to see him in India. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This text: Two secretaries stated that they failed to declare them while going through customs. (p.10) is less accurate than this text: Two secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. (p.5) The second does not seem accurate to me. Maybe it should say that they stated that they had had responsibility for the valuables while on the aircraft, but that is very clumsy. I think the intention is to say they took responsibility for the mishap. It doesn't matter much, I can live with either but prefer the shorter version. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Why are we omitting Mata Ji's assertion that her son was mad at her for making him attend? If we want to shorten the text a good sentence to work on would be: ...but had been deposited by 3,000 followers in order to pay for local travel and food, and that other valuables were gifts for Rawat, his family and mahatmas. (p.10} That can be shortened to: ...but had been deposited by followers to pay for expenses, and that the jewelry and watches were gifts. Fine by me. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Simple copyediting can reduce some to the "bloat" that is bothering two editors who are preventing us from moving forward and making the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil. Editors who are working together constructively to reach consensus are "not preventing us from moving forward" but engaging in discussion as per Wiki guidelines.Momento (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Can you please address the content issues? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil.Momento (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) That's your response? Why are you posting a new version that fail to address concerns and contains even less information? How is that going to get us to a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I propose User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 10 as a compromise proposal. It contains the essence of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) So you don't think that any of the objections above have merit? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) See my responses above. I will try to draft another version to try to reach a compromise. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I find I cannot. Prop 10 seems more than fine to me, and the only question I have is to do with the "investigation." Does this refer to the Government internal investigation into the way the affair was handled by the Indian Customs? What do the sources say? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 11 I've removed "reportedly" from the attendance as all of this is "reportedly". And reordered so that the "charges were not laid" is next to the people who may have been charged. And connected Mataji's criticisms to the apology that was given for them.Momento (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please address the issues I raised in the previous section. This version appears to be worse, not better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I think we can all agree that using "reportedly" for attendance figures and not for all the other "reported" material is adding bias. The "charges" sentence obviously applies to the secretaries who made the mistake and should be connected to them. Likewise, what is the Indian government apologizing for? Presumably for it's treatment of Rawat as expressed by his mother, so they should be connected.Momento (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) You're not addressing the issues already raised. The sentence on the secretaries distorts what is reported. "Valuable" is not as good a term as "jewels", because "jewels" is widely-used while "valuables" is not. It omits the international investigation and it omits the assertion by his mother that he was mad at her. If space is the isue then I again suggest we can trim the clause on expenses and gifts without losing important detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We do not all agree on your use/non-use of "reportedly". That's what was reported, that's not a bias. If you want to remove it for brevity, that's something else again, but if that's what was reported, that's not a bias. I doubt someone counted (if someone did, source it!), so it's at best a good estimate, removing that word shows bias. Now you're saying there was 5,000 people there, whether that's what was reported or not. That's not right. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) <<< to much of a do about not nothing. The incident can be reported without unnecessary detail that detracts from the rest of the article by giving it too much weight. Let's move on, shall we? I believe Proposal #10 may be a version that we can all live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Considering there are complaints about it that haven't been addresed I don't agree. If you believe that then start another straw poll and see if it gets more support than Prop.5. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Straw polls are useless while there are discussions ongoing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Prop. 12 I've posted Prop. 12. which is shorter yet. I addressed the concerns I'd posted above, about: the secretaries, the international investigation, the "valuables", the Mata Ji comments, plus the bond amount, was removed yet again. I hope this covers the length issues raies by Momento, Jayen, and Rumiton. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) An international investigation into Rawat's finances was discussed in the Indian Parliament ????? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) And the most significant piece of information, that the money belonged to 3,000 people to cover their travel expenses is missing. No, this proposal does not work whatsoever, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) If those are the only objections I'll change those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Done.[10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Common sense should prevail: What is the point of the minutiae, the editorializing, and the inability to summarize this incident? What is needed is a simple presentation of the facts, without indulging in trivial details, and if anything needs to be emphasized is the fact that it was a mistake that was picked up by the hostile press of the 70s (see Jaen's comments above), and that the government apologized for an embarrassing mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Almost there. I will sleep on it and comment tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) That information is the same "context" you required that we add two weeks ago. Biography is all about details. Yes, this information was reported in the press. Lots of news is reported in the press. That's their job. We even describe how it some said it got bad press. But an international investigation is not bad press. It's an actual thing that happened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) What should be included is that many newspapers incorrectly accused Rawat of smuggling when - no charges were laid, Rawat was never involved with the money, others accepted responsibility and the Indian government apologized. The Mata JI claim about Rawat being upset to be there needs corroboration since Hans Jayanti was considered a major DLM festival and Rawat would never have missed it. Also, the way the section is written suggests Rawat may have been on the same plane. If this is corroborated it needs to be clarified.Momento (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Momento (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We say that the charges were never filed. One good source for Mata Ji's comments is enough. Rawat is on record as missing a variety of appearances around that time, so it's not exceptional that he would miss it or celebrate it in the U.S., as he did the following year. Do you mean same plane as the suitcase? I don't think that's said. It never says so or even implies that he was carrying it. But sources do imply thatit was carried by his entourage, which presumbly would travel on the same plane. If we can clear this up more later that's fine but we don't say anything unverifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I cannot find where it says that "the charges were never filed." Still not neutral, still not factual enough. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This juxtaposition clearly suggests that the Rawat and the suitcase were on the same plane - "Rawat arrived back in India on 7 November, on one of seven jets chartered to bring 2,500 followers from the U.S. A suitcase, containing cash, jewelry, and wristwatches[35][14] worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000, was not properly declared and was impounded by customs". What is the source for "entourage" please?Momento (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We have sources that more clearly indicate Rawat and the suitcase arrived together. See Current Biography Yearbook, Charles Moritz, ed. 1974. p. 256. Is that the only objection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) However I still don't see the implicit connection that you do. To me they are clearly represented as separate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This version is getting closer to a suitable compromise that we may all live with. What is needed is some tweaking: An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. This is editorializing. Yes, the incident was discussed in Parlliament but saying " an international financial investigation" reeks of poor journalism, and this article is not a newspaper. Suggest replacing with The incident was discussed in the Indoan Parliament... Charges were never filed (Malgwadi) is missing Somehow, the fact that PR was 15 years old at the time needs to be highlighted, as it provides some nuanced context to the fact that he was a minor at the time. The Government did not apologize to Rawat. All we know is that the government issued an apology. To whom we don't know. Two secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. I am not sure that is what the source says. My understanding is that they stated that they failed to declare them, and that's all If these aspects are fixed, I would support this version, despite the fact that it is not my preferred version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) A) It was a financial investigation, and it was international. Your suggested text doesn't include that. B) An omission. Fixed. C) His age is an entirely new point that no one has mentioned before. The previous complaints have been about adding too much info. Is this really an essential point that we all agree on? D) Fixed. E) One of the them took responsibility for being the owner of the suitcase, and one of them took responsibility for failing to declare it. A would omit important info, B & D are fixed, E is accurate now, and C is a minor point that shouldn't stop us from making this edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) A - No, it wasn't. The sources do not describe such an "investigation" B - thanks C - Age is needed. He was a minor at the time and it this gets too often missed. D - OK E - What does the source says exactly? Fix these issues are we may be there... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) "We were there" back on Prop.5, until Momento and Rumiton objected, and so until they stop objecting or we override them we can't make any progreess. We already agreed on the text regarding the secretaries. You have the sources too - read them yourself. It's not helpful to keep bringing up issues that have already been settled, or creating new ones like the age. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with the suggestion to add his age in here. I knew he was young but not that young as I didn't do the calculation when contemplating this section. Including that the fact that he was 14 years old (assuming the festival was before his birthday in December) provides important context that may otherwise be lost on the first time reader. Surely just the addition of a few words in the first sentence will do, such as: Rawat, then aged 14, arrived back in India on 7 November on one of seven jets chartered to bring 2,500 followers from the U.S Also, I suggest a grammatical correction to the last para, substituting the first ‘and’ for a comma: Mata Ji said that customs officials had humiliated her son, that the Indian press had given his visit the worst possible coverage, and that her son was angry with her for convincing him to attend. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. These changes make sense. To Will Beback: If you find the consensus process too tedious, maybe you should consider stepping back a bit. There is no need to make assertions about "tendentiousness" while editors are having good discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Creating new demands after weeks of discussion is not helpful. I've made the changes proposed by 82.[11] Are there any further objections to Prop.12? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Well, maybe time is about right by now to get live footnotes in again. I can do footnote finetuning (as I have in prop. 8 - the ones in there can be used too if you like their formatting), but only if I'm sure which one goes where, that is: unless for those where I have the actual text of the source. For some of them I also know which one goes where traditionally, but maybe also time to do a check-up on that: with all the changes and so on maybe some sentences are now better referenced to other available sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The statement by Will that I've made the changes proposed by 82. finally pushed me over the line to create an account, though only a pseudonym for the moment.. This comment is to enable you all to make the connection, so you know who I am. Savlonn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The top level investigation, in which Premier Mrs Indira Gandhi, as head of India's intelligence services, is taking a personal interest, began last November when Customs men at Delhi Airport had a tip from America that one of the divine bags was stuffed with jewels for the guru's mother plus sterling, dollars and travellers' cheques. The boy said they were nothing to do with him. Top executives in his mission team claimed that the money was to feed and house 350 American converts-in-the-making, who had flown in with him in the chartered jumbo jet he called his silver steed and were going on a three-week course at the imposing training academy on the banks of the Ganges. Special investigators from the revenue department have been trying to find out just how much he is worth and how much wealth the mission has accumulated in other countries. It is an offence in Indian law to have a bank account abroad without permission from the Treasury, but the guru set up in Britain as a charitable trust which banks all the income. Now the Indian Government will decide whether or not a charity abroad benefiting Indian nationals is contravening the law. The Indian Special Branch has its own interest in the guru. It fears that with or without the knowledge of the mission's hierarchy, spies or CIA agents might use the security of the mission as a cover. The Indian Home Office is also watching the boy. "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life" Richard Herd Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21 This addresses a couple of issues - Jossi's claim that there was no financial investigation and Momento's concerns about the whether Rawat was travelling with the group. This shows the investigation involved several ministries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) CIA agent? This is not only funny but simply demonstrates the bias of the India of that time. We are talking about a 14 year old for Pete's sake. In any case, this is not an "international investigation" and if that is kept, context as poer the above source needs to be given, including the CIA allegations which have been made in other sources as well. I would advice to trim all that stuff into just what is needed instead. Let's keep this simple, folks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Ok, the source is poor (Daily Mail is a British Tabloid), but if there is a reliable source confirming the essence - that the Indian Internal Revenue department was investigating British trust funds, then this by definition is an "international investigation" and IMO the wording should stay. Even on the subjective side, I'm happy that the context of the term can imply 'big deal', as it obviously was. Savlonn (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The Daily Mail is published in tabloid format, but I don't see how that effects their reliability as a source. Jossi had earlier proposed using another article from it as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This is text that Jossi and I had already agreed upon, so I don't understand why he's now saying he's unaware of any international investigation. In addition to the Daily Mail article, which i'd just found, the basic source is an AP report that says: One senior member of the government said Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain —have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. The government, he said, wants to determine whether the mission is violating Indian law, particularly regarding restrictions on Indian nationals having bank accounts and capital assets abroad. "Gifts for a Guru" AP, printed in Stars and Stripes November 15, 1972. I don't see how anyone can say there wasn't an international investigation when we have two sources that say there was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This is not a newspaper, and editorializing is something I will oppose at all times in this and any other Wikipedia article. The text I propose (proposal #13) captures perfectly what is in the sources, and without generic extrapolations that serve no purpose. The main point in this "incident" is that it was an excercise in futility and the despite the reporting by wires, it ended up in an apology from the government. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please explain what you mean by "editorializing". How is reporting the fact that there was an international investigation "editorializing"? This term appears to be like "tabloidesque" -thrown out in place of a rational argument. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) There was an investigation, and it was international, you know it, I know it, and everyone else that reads the sources knows it, stop wasting everyone's (mostly Will's) time. If you have nothing constructive to add, please step out of the way while we actually accomplish something. And to suggest that an editor should step back from an article because he opposes your views is frankly, a little ridiculous. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #13 Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) It's fine with me except that it fails to mention the international investigation into the finances. All we need to do is add "international" to "An investigation was discussed..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Not needed, Will. It says "finances abroad" as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) What's your objection? You accepted the material before, in P5. Are you going to hold up the consensus over an insistence on omitting the word "international", which is sourced and neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 5 bucks says yes. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) This phrase "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad" doesn't make sense. It that supposed to be "the wealth of the mission abroad"? If so, that's not what the investigation was about. Please stick closer to sources. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) P12 -An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. P13 - An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. I don't see how P13 is an improvement on P12. It doesn't make any sense grammatically. How about this, which is less passive: The Indian goverment conducted an international investigation into the DLM's finances, which were discussed in parliament. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi reportedly took a personal interest. That covers the same ground and is easier to read. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I disagree that we need Rawat's age in this paragraph, we already have the year, the article is arranged chronologically, and we have the info box giving his birthdate. Anyone who can't do the math and arrive at "14" probably isn't reading WP (or anything else!) in the first place. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I didn't realize that he was 14 until Jossi made the suggestion to include his age. As per my previous comment, I didn't do the calculation. As soon as I realized, it really changed the whole context of this section for me. I don't understand your disagreement as adding those 3 words "then aged 14" can only help clarify the section; I can't see any reason not to include this. Please explain how adding these 3 words detracts from or adds bias to the article? Savlonn (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I agree [with Maelefique], but I don't see any harm in it. I honestly don't see why his age is important for this paragraph but not for the paragraphs before or after. But if it will get us towards an agreement on this material then let's just add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I might have been unclear, I don't have a problem with it being in there if, as Will said, it moves us along. I just don't agree that it's necessary in a paragraph that we pretty much had done, and then we needed to shorten.... by adding more words about his age?? -- Maelefique (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yep - I agree with you both to focus on getting this section wrapped up, rather than debating the less important details. On that note, it seems that we were just one word away "international" from agreement on Proposal 12 - can't we all just rewind to that point? Savlonn (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) <<< I honestly don't see why his age is important for this paragraph. In all honesty I do not understand why you don't see the importance. That concerns me a great deal... As for the "international investigation" that is editorializing. An "international investigation" has undesirable connotations, and innuendo that you may have missed as well. I stand by the text I proposed in 13, which is close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) No one thought the age issue was important enough to include in the previous 18 drafts, so please let's not get on our high horses and imply that anyone who doesn't want it included is a bad editor. Nobody has said it can't be there. I don't know anything about innuendo or connotations. The fact is that there was an investigation that spanned several countries. If you prefer not to say "international" then we can "stay close to the source" which says countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain. 'The Indian goverment conducted an investigation into the DLM's finances, including in the U.S. and U.K., which was discussed in parliament. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi reportedly took a personal interest. I hope that's "innuendo-free". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) No. It is not innuendo free. You are asserting your opinion. The discussion in the parliament is the only fact. There are no sources that report that investigations took place at all. See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What opinion is being asserted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) As for the mentioning of the age, it is not about being a "bad editor". It is about the impression that results from edits that omits significant details, while paying close attention to other less significant details of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) If we're going to mention his age in this regard we should mention that his age was contested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Contested? Do you mean the mention in India that he was an old man in a body of a midget? lol. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) You know exactly what I mean. When the subject returned to India there were claims that he had lied about his age and was really several years older. If you think that its importnat to include his age in reference to this matter then the part of the story where his age was disputed is also relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Sure, feel free to add it. It will be interesting to describe the nutty stories that were made up by those that opposed the young Prem Rawat. Even Gagan refers to this... lol. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I do not see what is the problem of stating, as per the source that An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. Note that there are no sources that report any results from these purported investigation, only that is was discussed. Let's stay close to the sources, please≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I don't understand your point. The source says: One senior member of the government said Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain —have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. People are asked to investigate = investigation. Countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain =international. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) People could be told not to investigate, shortly after being told to investigate. Then there'd be no investigation. The Daily Mail article makes it clear an investigation went on in India for some months, but (unless I missed it, which is quite possible), there's no source saying the diplomatic missions actually did any investigating, in the end. Hypnotist uk (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) You're right that just because someone says something is going to happen doens't mean it actually happens. But if we have no evidence to the contrary then we can usually assume that the plan was carried out. If a government official says that people "have been asked" to investigate, we shouldn't assume he's lying without a reason. And we should assume that the people investigated as they were asked to do unles we have evidence showing they didn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad"... for the second time, either you're quoting it badly, or it's just poor english, or you missed out a word, that phrase makes no sense. please fix. -- Maelefique (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What is the problem? Yes, an investigation was discussed in the Parliament. Factually accurate as per the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "... about the wealth the mission abroad" doesn't make sense. Hypnotist uk (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil in your edit summaries.Momento (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Can you point out the specific edit summary? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, I saw the edit summary you were referring to. Yes, let's all be civil. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think I was one of the few people here who was affected by the way this incident was reported in 1972. I had received Knowledge only a couple of weeks before, and was starting to feel the kindness and joy it has, and that Prem Rawat has. At lunch, a workmate was reading that day's Melbourne Age, a highly reputable Australian broadsheet, the essence of a "reputable source." The article was headed something like "Boy Guru Accused of Watch Smuggling." I recall how cynically the chap said, "See! It's just another rip-off." And I recall how sick I felt. It wasn't until a month later that someone showed up in Melbourne who was on the flight and told me what actually happened, and I heard about the Government apology. The Age reported neither of them, and no doubt many people still think of Maharaji as a smuggler. This article needs to start to redress that. YES, it is important that Prem Rawat was 14 years old at the time, and YES the highlight needs to be on the "no charges ever filed" and the government apology. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) That's an interesting anecdote Rumiton, but as Jossi has drilled into all of us many times, truth is not as important as verifiability, and these are the things our sources have to say about it. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) A little truth now and again probably doesn't hurt. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I would totally agree (and personally, do), except it's against WP guidelines when there's a conflict, to go with truth instead of sources. I'm sure Jossi has the policy on speed-dial if we try and go against it. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #14 How about this? Please explain the change and it's reasoning. I appears to me that the main change is to say that an investigation was only suggested. That doesn't agree with sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #13 is the factually correct version. An investigation was discussed, and we do not know more that this fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'm concerned that editors, like me, without access to many of the sources used (Stars & Stripes, Syracuse Post etc) are unable to see the context in which some of these claims are made. Could Will please provide links to these sources?Momento (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'd be happy to send you any clippings you'd like. Just email me a request. I've made this offer before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The quotes from Daily Mail, AP, Stars & Stripes, etc. are clear and unamibguous; an international investigation was undertaken. Will has already compromised beyond what I feel is necessary by dropping the reference to 'international' I will not accept any further weakening of this point as I strongly agree it then becomes a distortion that doesn't agree wih the sources. Stating that such an investigation occured is not 'editorializing' (implication of opinion making) but an impartial, self-evident summary of the sourced information.Savlonn (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think that you are misunderstanding the dispute, Savlon. Will BeBack proposal: An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. My proposal: An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) There are three outstanding issues here. The first is ambiguity with your (Jossi's) proposal. "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Pariliament" could be interpreted as the Indian Parliament discussing whether an investigation should be undertaken. The second is that it needs to be clearly stated that the investigation was into the financial aspects (of the DLM) following the customs incident. It is a distortion to say that the investigation was about the 'wealth' of the moment. The third is the previous argument that it should be correctly referred to as an International Investigation.Savlonn (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The ambiguity you mention, is on both proposals. My proposal includes wording that refers to "the wealth the mission abroad", which is close to the sources used. There is no mention of an "international investigation" in the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, I'm not sure why you continue to ignore it, but I'm going to keep asking, what the heck does "the wealth the mission abroad" mean? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Can you please correct it, you keep repeating it, I keep asking, you keep ignoring, how many times do I need to ask? Just let me know, I'll type 'em all out. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "The wealth the mission <insert verb here> abroad" was how I was reading it, but I have no idea what verb is intended. Held? Stashed? Reported? Buried? Distributed? Ignited? Hypnotist uk (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The verb is at the beginning of the sentence. "An investigation was discussed..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) As Maelefique says, if that is the case the word "of" is missing. Hypnotist uk (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, the "of" been taken care of. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Or it could be as simple as "the wealth OF the mission abroad", it would be nice to find out what Jossi is trying to say, especially since he keeps saying it. Should I ask a 5th time yet? -- Maelefique (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Progress User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat: 1972 Hans Jayanti paragraph, introducing version 6/7 hybrid per User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 - in order to start on the ref finetuning and other cpedit [12] --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Copied to User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal_8 --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Way premature, Francis. I am not sure what the significance of adding this material to the "sandbox" article is, but you have no consensus for it. It is just one of several proposals. I much prefer Proposal 10. Let's talk about that. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC) In fact, your sandbox edits over the last few hours appear to be making a mockery of this entire consensus-seeking process. Please revert them yourself and carry on discussing proposed changes. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Prem Rawat#Proposed update #2: 1972 Hans Jayanti and grouping of Downton refs --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) How does this look? A revision of the investigation conducted by Parliament, Gandhi, et al. The investigation, which continued into the summer of 1973, was discussed in the Indian Parliament and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was reported to have taken an interest in the matter. Indian diplomatic missions in several countries, including the United States and the United Kindom, were asked to investigate the Divine Light Mission's capital assets and bank accounts abroad, which were restricted for Indian nationals under Indian law. Mael-Num (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Adding whom was investigaged. Mael-Num (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Adding "Indian nationals". Mael-Num (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Subtract "intelligence" (Har Har) Mael-Num (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Is this one of the proposals? which one am I looking at now? (uhh, it's not a party guessing game, I mean, which one should I direct my attention to :) ) thanks. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Not as yet, Mael. I was trying to guage if the language used here to describe the "investigations abroad" portion of a yet-unmade proposal would be amenable to everyone. Mael-Num (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC) That looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Looks ok to me too, except...(drum-roll anyone?), move the comma after "Gandhi" to after "Parliament", and what the heck, let's say we throw a G in "Kindom" if we get really bored. :) Or, we could just repeat some nonsensical phrase over and over and ignore it every time someone says "that doesn't make sense", whichever. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I hope we can keep it as short as possible. It'd be more direct to say: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government through the summer of 1974. PM Gandhi took a personal interest in the case, which was discussed in parliament. The information about Indian fiscal laws is important context, but at some point a good link is worth a thousand words. I'm sure there must be a link to Indian Currency laws or some such, and we can add a short line or phrase to cover it. Let's keep this bit short. Any objections to this fresh formulation? It's not perfect, but is it good enough? (PS: we only have one proposal slot left on this page. Can we make it?) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Heh, it's never a limit at 15, I just never foresaw so many proposals. If it's really necessary, I can add more slots :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think we can shorten Prime Minister to PM, other than that, still no objection here. I like the idea of shortening this whole paragraph, are we going to end up with proposal 5 again? :) -- Maelefique (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Re: "PM" Yes, that was just editing shorthand. Wikipedia doesn't use abbreviations (much). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) P1.15 Is this good enough? It's P1.13 plus the text discussed above. Can we agree and move on? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Getting there, but not as yet. You write "The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government through the summer of 1974.". But we do not know if and and how long that "investigation" took. There is no material in the sources that describe an investigation of "Rawat finances". Your text is OR and unsupported by the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) What part isn't supported by sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) What part isn't sourced? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) An investigation by Indian diplomatic missions in several countries, about the wealth of the mission abroad was discussed in the Indian Parliament. and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. is a more accurate presentation of all proposals. I am addng this wording to Proposal 13≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC) You have a period after "Parliament", change the period to a comma, and it's there, at least grammar-wise. (Otherwise, you have a sentence that starts with "and", and it's not capitalized). -- Maelefique (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) There is no comma needed after suitcase, but more importantly "took responsibility" is not neutral. It creates a suggestion they "took the rap" for the wicked, watch-smuggling guru. A previous version that said they "stated that they had omitted to declare them" or words to that effect was better. Change that sentence and we have a wrap. From my side. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "Took responsibility" is in a source, if I recall correctly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Could you re-check this please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC) A high government source said it was unlikely there would be any prosecution of the guru, since his Indian personal secretary who traveled with him had accepted responsibility for the suitcase. But he added that the government is concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad, especially in the United States, where the American devotees recently purchased two small airplanes for the guru's use. We can change it to "accepted responsibilty" if Rumiton thinks "took" is somehow prejudicial. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "Accepted responsibility" is apparently the original. You changed it to "took responsibilty" to introduce the biased tone you appear to find necessary for this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Just note, I can make a spot for Proposal 16 if needed, but by now, I think it would be best if the current proposal is worked through until we have a consensus for the edit. I still have a request, Prem Rawat is unprotected, as I do agree that it was no longer necessary, however that I still be the one who determines the consensus, and make the edit myself? Probably the best way to do it, I think. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I agree, Steve, that you should be the only one making the determination that 1) consensus has been reached; and 2) that you be the one to make the actual edits to the page. I think that will save time and misunderstandings. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 16 User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal_16 "took" >> "accepted" Hope this one can be the one... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Since the investigation also looked into Rawat's taxes I think the formulation I've proposed is more accurate: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated... P1.16 makes it appear that the investigation was solely into DLM assets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Agree with Will. And can we please get rid of English American tour.Momento (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Looks OK now to me. The tour is overkill, but the article is full of that anyway. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I will make the changes suggested, despite that fact that see these as problematic (1. What taxes can be investigated of a 14-year old boy.; 2. If we say that h has to post bond and don't say why, it is simply not right) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) What is our source for the "500,000 attendees"? The way it reads, it seems awfully factual, as opposed to either a "press released" number, or a reasonable estimate of the number, which are two more likely ways they arrived at that number. I doubt we have a concrete "500,000 tickets sold" type of count. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) A barometer of the guru's attraction was a "Hans Jayanti" festival in India in November, in which more than 500,000 persons participated. Seven Boeing 747s were chartered in the United States to carry Western disciples to the festival and for a .month-long stay in the ashrma (a stage in the Brahmanic scheme of life) of Guru Maharaj Ji. This is an unsigned piece from what some might call a 2nd-rate newspaper. I think I've also seen the number in books, but I don't have time right now to check. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Was that number from an UPI wire? I cannot find the reference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I think it would be preferable then, to change that wording in the article to "over 500,000 attendees", it lets the reader know there was many people but we don't have an exact count. The way it reads now, that 500,000 seems very factual and precise, when it isn't. I would make the edit, but I don't have the source to add. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) P1.16 seems to have lost the parliamentary discusion. Any reason? That seems important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I made the changes as requested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Would this work: "An investigation into the finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest." If not, pls propose alternate text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I object to the removal of "Prime Minister" here, I think far more readers are familiar with "Prime Minister" than "Indira Gandhi" (sadly). If we want to remove "Indira Gandhi", and replace it with "Indian Prime Minister", I would be ok with that. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC) or "Prime Minister Gandhi", but that's mildly ambiguous, there's been more than one (although not as bad if linked to the correct article). -- Maelefique (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi's wikifying of the name works too. happy happy. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 16 is ok for me. Savlonn (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The wording looks great to me. It conveys all the important points, and moves along briskly. My only question: if there was an issue with conflicting reports of the number of jumbo jets chartered[13], is it best to say "seven"? Would it be better to say "several", a rare instance where being less specific is more factual? Mael-Num (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Rereading that link, ditto for 2500? Perhaps "at least 2500"? I understand the reasoning behind the numbers as they are now: Will is saying to take one reliable source and go specifically with their numbers, and I'm fine with that option, too. I just want to make sure everyone knows that's what they're agreeing with. Mael-Num (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) There were seven chartered Jumbo jets, and others arrived on commercial flights, for a total of 9 planes. The number of people is stated in other sources 3,000. I would not make a big deal of this, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Five, six, or seven, even nine: it's not a big difference. I'll note that some have claimed it was the first significant chartering of 747s, and was the largest civilian airlift-to-date. At this point those claims are hard to evaluate. (The 1973 festival may have had as many as 33 chartered flights.) We're not making any similar claims. This proposed treatment is conservative even if it uses the highest number of flights for the 1972 festival. If need be we can throw in an "approximately". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Here's my proposed alterate: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government. Indira Gandhi took a personal interest in the case, which was discussed in parliament. That keeps the main verb from being "was discussed", though it's still used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) OK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) This latest version looks good to me. I think it accurately covers the event and gives the right weight to it too. I see no need for improvement. I endorse this version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I am OK with it, too. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Seems like we could be close to an agreement here :D. Perhaps a curtosey message to the other parties, asking them to have a look at the proposal, and give their opinion, would be the fastest way to get an agreement, and then the edit made. Also, don't think I have been ignoring this case, I've been watching over it, I just have felt that you are all doing reasonably well in discussing this, and I think there's not a lot, at least in this proposal, except to let you all discuss your edits. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Messaging everybody imposes an unnecessary burden. Consensus is reached by active participation, not by a sudden intervention of uninterested people, at the end of weeks of work by active participants. The process should be: when we feel close to an agreement, we make a deadline in the form: "Edit will be made by June XX, 00 UTC unless an objection is made substantiated by solid arguments" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Consensus is reached by active participation, yes. Not by a deadline. We are not working to a timeline here, we are working to consensus. If the vast majority of the active editors on this page are happy with proposal 16, let's add the edit. If not, let's fix it. It looks like we are pretty happy with 16, myself included. I can see only one active editor who hasn't given it his approval yet, Momento. I say give him a day or two at most, and if he doesn't find any objection, make the edit, afterall, consensus isn't unanimity anyway. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm OK with it but it seems all we've added to the original is unnecessary stuff about the secretaries, the Indian parliament and Rawat's mother, none of which alters the fundamental facts as found in the original. And I still have doubts about Mata Ji comments but I haven't seen the original.Momento (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Well, how about we iron out those issues, then implement the changes, per the consensus that appears to be here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Before we do too much more, can Momento be a little more clear? His first words are "I'm ok with it" but the rest of his comment seems to indicate that he is not ok with it, despite not having seen the original sources. I don't want to go editing further if we are all happy with #16, but I don't want to trample over Momento if he has objections to this proposal either. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) If Momento says he's OK with it then we should take that to mean he's OK with it. If he's not objecting then that's fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Had I come home and found the edit made, I wouldn't have objected. As I said above, there's a lot more material that doesn't add much substance and that will become more important when looking at the article as a hole. In terms of, is this section or incident worth the space we've allocated to it compared to other stuff. More importantly I've finally figured out what I don't like about about Mata Ji's comment. I'm happy for her to say what she thinks about the customs and the press, she entitled to an opinion and it makes for a bit of light relief but I'm not happy with including a report of what she says Rawat did. It's one thing for her and the reporters to voice what she thinks but we have only her word for what Rawat did. And since it puts Rawat in a negative light, cursing your mother in India is treason, I think it should be omitted.Momento (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC) We've already adresed that concern - the text doesn't say that Rawat cursed Mata Ji. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) As of today, 8:22 eastern standard time, P.16 looks good. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal to go ahead with the edit Let's do this edit, as it has all the traits of having reached consensus. Sure. I am not 100% happy with all of it, but I can live with it. Unless there are serious objections substantiated by solid arguments, I propose the edit is made by Steve at 00:00 UTC June 14. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) How far away is that, by the way? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) It's 10 a.m. Saturday morning, Steve. Can you pay someone to be up for you at that time? :D Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Steve: You are UTC +10 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'll get my wife to wake me up :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (OT) Married? Yay! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, married :D. Ahem puts on, boring, serious mediator look ;). Alright, I'll be awake at that time. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm sure that it'll be fine if Steve makes the edit whenever it's convenient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Must I wait for another whole hour? It's more convenient for me now. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Go ahead, Steve. I am sure that it would be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) It should go in the "Leaving India" section, replacing the second paragraph. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)  Done, however, this reference needs to be corrected. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Side discussion Is this a joke or what? Are we having such detailed discussions here when other editors do as they please editing the article directly? How can these discussions be held when that kind of stuff happens? This shows a total disregard for this process to which we have all agreed upon, and it is disrespectful of these editors that have chosen to take the hard path of reaching consensus despite differences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC) There are other pages to discuss the mediation. Let's stick to discussing this piece of text. So far everyone seems OK with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I pick "or what". Are you trying to stop our progress here now? A little focus is needed right here/now, not unrelated problems. I don't know why you feel so disrespected, I don't. When we get to the part of the article he edited, if we don't agree with it, I'm sure we can arrive at consensus again and change it to something we're all happy with. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I don't feel disrespected either. Let's keep the discussion here focused upon the proposal. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DuPertuis?

I've read excerpts of her work, and I don't think wording like this

Dupertuis describes Rawat's role as Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma.

is not really an accurate appraisal of her work. It sounds as if her conclusions were that he isn't a charismatic authority figure, and I don't think that's the case. Has anyone else read her? Mael-Num (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is as close as I could stay to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add a second, alternate wording to the proposals page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try, though previous attempts on my part to write improvements met with a bit of negative reception from particular editors[14]. Mael-Num (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a helluva time even finding the full text on this article (20+ years old and published by the University of Guam...go figure). I have access to JStor and LexisNexis, and still no dice. I'm still looking, but I'm gonna need more time.

Or maybe someone else could help me out with a copy? Someone's gotta have it, as part of that quote (the "charisma was not an impediment for some devotees" bit) doesn't appear anywhere in the online version I found at Rick Ross' place. Mael-Num (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy that I can send to anyone who emails me a request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of what the draft may be summarinz is this paragraph:

• • Charisma in Sant Mat/Radhasoami/DLM tradition can best be understood in terms of darshan for which, according to Bharati, "absolutely no parallel" can be found "in any religious act in the West ..." (1970:161, cited in Eck, 1981:5). Darshan means "sight"—of the deity or the guru who embodies him/her, usually for the purpose of imbibing his/her divine powers or grace (Babb, 1981; Eck: 1981). It implies sight on a rich multiplicity of symbolic and spiritual levels which demonstrate a complex mix of doctrinal and mythic, perceptual and visionary, interactional and experiential dimensions in the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his or her followers.

It goes on to decribe in greater detail, including the DARSHAN OF THE ABSOLUTE (meditation), the DARSHAN OF THE LIVING MASTER (the physical darshans of Prem Rawat), DARSHAN VIA THE COMMUNITY OF DEVOTEES (satsangs). I think anyone who wants to summarize it needs to read it in full. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the full article, Will. (any reason of THE ALL CAPS?). The material I added is related specifically to the subject being treated in this paragraph: charismatic authority. So, what is your point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(The caps were there because I was copying and pasting from the paper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Jossi, can you post the text you are summarizing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, my sister phoned tonight, and the academic institution she teaches at apparently pays for the JStor tier that includes sociology papers written 20 years ago in Guam (luxury!), unlike my school. So, I have a copy if you're in need, Will. Just tell me where you'd like it.

Wait...that didn't come out right. Mael-Num (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text that is summarized in the proposed text: The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma. Rather he represented a conceptual link which defined and integrated a diffuse set of experiences. Continued adherence to this religion depended on acceptance of this linkage of experiences as well as continued meditational efforts to achieve them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The part I was looking for is here:

Several years of practice and much satsang among followers strengthened their competence in meditation and confidence in its results, leading for many to increasingly confirming darshan experiences and deeper belief in Guru Maharaj Ji as Satguru. But at the same time, this increased competence led many others, who tired of the restrictions and eccentricities of DLM life, to discover that they had learned to "experience God on their own and had little further need of Guru Maharaj Ji as spiritual interpreter or guide. They thus drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment. (21) The very effort involved in learning to recognize charisma, then, often led to a diminishing interest in doing so.

The more I read DuPertuis' work, the sketchier she seems as a source. When an academic spouts quotes like this:

I started hallucinating, everything started moving. I felt like I was on a psychedelic, . . . and then the whole stage just became white light - I just couldn't see anything. I was completely disoriented, but I just felt so much love that it's almost too intense, and I just couldn't take it .

I start to question their objectivity as a scientist. Plus, in the previous quoted section, she clearly has no basis or rationale for saying how she knows people left in fulfillment, or that it was their ability to recognize charisma that spurred their disinterest in Rawat. She indicates no methodology to determine this, so she cannot possibly have any insights there.

I like the earlier parts where she's sythesizing a hypothesis. I'll reread this tomorrow and hopefully we can all discuss it more. I'm just saying, this seems less than ideal as an academic source. Mael-Num (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we now engaged in literary criticism? Or are we supposed to simply refer to cited material published in reputable publications? I would argue that it is the latter. What would really help, is to do the work and make proposals in the proposals page. We are at that stage in which long-winded discussions do not yield much usefulness as it relates to content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, are we? You'd argue that what is the latter?

Oh, and Jossi...you're treading dangerously close to being uncivil. Mael-Num (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. Just tired of the long diatribes and debates that leave not much content on the table. After all, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not just engaging in endless debate, right? Look forward to your proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither required to submit a proposal, nor disengage from debate. You are required to remain civil. Hopefully this clears up your obvious confusion. Furthermore, by your apparent confusion and admission, you must be tired. Why not take a break? You may be surprised by the progress that can be made in your absence! Mael-Num (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we are supposed to discuss the edit and not the editor, right? So, if an editor does not provide useful text for articles, or proposes edits and material for consideration, there is nothing to discuss, is it? So from now on, I will simply ignore comments made that do not move this mediation forward, which has been put in place to make progress in the article, and not just to facilitate endless debates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have both provided useful text for articles, and proposed edits and material for consideration, I fail to see your point. Of course, you are free to (continue to) ignore any and all of my contributions, now and in the future. Mael-Num (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue strongly for using DuPertuis as a source, unless all Sociological reference is to be abandoned. DuPertuis' clear statement of her own experience and her reports of unjudged first hand testimony is grounded in the established Sociological approach of [Qualitative research], and while Social Science is not "Science", it is certainly a discipline acceptable to most encyclopaedists. The source of difficulty that I see is whether the role of 'darshan' should or should not receive fuller explanation as a develoment of the section on charismatic leadership --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is about charismatic authority and we are describing the opinions of scholars on the subject. That is exactly what we are and should be doing. Discussions about that if Social Sciences are science or not should not be part of these discussions. Discussions about the difference between hard science and soft science, are better held at Social sciences ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. A ground rule I laid down when I took on this case was civility/NPA. And, if I see fit, I'll let people know about incivility. Let's keep discussion on topic. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DuPertuis has:

The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma. (section "Discussion" - 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dupertuis and Schnabel

Note that DuPertuis clarifies with an example what Schnabel describes as "staging":

Western devotees reorganized the ritual by lining up the devotees beforehand, seating Guru Maharaj Ji higher up so his feet, now at chest level, would be quicker to kiss. They even experimented: once they had two lines, one passing by each foot; and once they set Guru Maharaj Ji ,and j his throne on a jeep which drove slowly by two miles of lined-up devotees. They finally settled on a long, cloth-draped blue tunnel through which devotees could file silently, leaving the world's mentality, stepping into the divine route to their guru's presence. (section "Darshan of the Living Master" - end of 1st paragraph)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

As no counter proposals have bee submitted, I will ask this for material to be added to the article via edit-protected template as agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should do it Jossi? Also, note that two users are either still blocked, or not yet aware of these precedings. Perhaps a few days should be given first. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. We shall wait for couple of days then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just one other thing, I'd prefer to do the editprotected requests myself. That way, I can say, "please insert proposal X into article Y per consensus at page Z.". And then, if there's disagreements, they can take the issue up with me, not a party in the case. Okay with you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute - no one agreed to this version. Is specifically asked for us to wait untoil Francis comes back from his block. Is there a hurry? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss my comment above? I said that we can wait a few days to see if there are counter proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that if an editor gets blocked for probation violation, there is no reason to wait for them. Editing is a privilege, not a right, which they forfeit when they violate page probation. (if a user gets blocked next for a month, will we "wait"? Of course not.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see no hurry. Although I bet after this case is eventually over, I will be known on Wikipedia as that guy who mediated Prem Rawat. :P. Anyway, I agree, it's best to wait until there's a clear consensus. I've also requested the users be unblocked so they can enter the discussion. (their block has expired). I think edit warring is impossible on the Prem Rawat article, don't you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's always an opportunity for edit warring. With Prem Rawat protected the dispute may move to another article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• And when that happens, there are other alternative options.. But I hope it won't get to that :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have a much more positive outlook. My experience is that if there is active participation in mediation, these issues are very easily dealt with, in particular when we have article probation (which is working BTW). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, indeed. I feel this can be mediated well as well. I'm just saying there are other options if necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a comment from Steve about this idea of "waiting for users to come back from blocks". My argument is above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, indeed. Editing is a privelige, not a right. Now, please, read both of this and this. It's basically my full explanation of why I had the page protected. I feel that protection of the article would reduce the activity on Arbitration Enforcment. Basically, it would delay the mediation. Also, I've said before that I'm in this one for the long run, so if I become known as "that Prem Rawat mediator guy", then so be it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• This material is highly technical. Summarizing obtuse sociologicial papers is not like deciding on whether to report a bond amount. Pushing through contentious, complicated material while an experienced, interested editor is briefly blocked doesn't seem like the best way of proceeding. If we want the best article possible then let's make sure we're making use of all resources, including editors. Unless we can get more viewpoints on this material I oppose making the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• I do not know what you keep pushing this point, as we have all agreed to wait for few days. BTW, you may find this material obtuse, but for me and maybe for others it is not the case. Opposing an edit on the basis of "I don't know enough about the subject" is simply antithetical to this project's aims, and we cannot force editors to make comments or propose alternative proposals, can we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• You are seeking to make an edit to a protected page which you have said you would not edit. If your proposal meets with approval from involved editors then there's no harm done. But if doesn't then the edit shouldn't be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry? I understand that the agreement is that any edits will be made only if there is consensus. We gauge consensus by talk page debates and discussions. And that is exaclty what these pages are for. I, or anyone else by that matter, can offer proposals for discussion, so I do not know what are you implying. Also check the arbCom case decision which does not preclude my participation in talk, or actually even editing these articles directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, and I'm just saying that I don't see a consensus here. The lack of an alternate proposal doesn't equal consensus for your proposal. The status quo is the alternate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Not really... See [15]], which will make things much easier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• If Steve thinks there's a consensus favoring this version then he's welcome to say so. As for myself, I'd like to see input from more editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, but if other editors decide not to contribute, there is no reason to ignore well researched material as per the proposal I offered. It includes material from three six additional sources on the subject, published in highly reputable books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there's also consensus by silence. If there's a certain amount of time given, where no objections or alternate proposals are offered, then consensus would be assumed. Perhaps you should send a message to all the others, Jossi? Steve Crossin (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, placed note at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Proposal_2_in_mediation_page ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Great, give it some time and we will see how they respond, or if they respond at all. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Slow and steady wins the race :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Section is good, I tidied it up a bit. Jayen466 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I will withdraw my proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the first reference to Weberian aspects of charismatic authority in the first sentence to be too esoteric for the typical reader, and thus decrease the Readability of the article. Though we are referring to scholarly, academic material, we are not attempting to write at the same level, but to provide an article that a broad section of the public can comprehend.

Secondly, I don't think there should be a direct comparison to 'Osho', without at least prior context in the article. Would you expect someone reading about Prem Rawat for the first time on Wikipedia to know who Osho is, and why he is being compared with Rawat? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric? This is an encyclopedia, with articles such as Textual criticism (which I am currently working on to reach featured article status), as well as others such as Linnaean taxonomy that you may also call "esoteric" and hard to comprehend by the "general public". In Wikipedia articles, readers can use the wikilinks to find more information about related subject, in this case, Max Weber, Charismatic authority, and Osho. Having said that, I am sure that a better wording for the first sentence can be found to introduce readers to the subject. Any proposals? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that relevant links to references have been provided, but IMO it is still a question whether they are of practical use to a typical reader. Let's say someone looks up this article after having a vague recollection of a young 1970s 'Guru' and wonders whatever became of him. The lead will give a nice summary, but when they get to this section, many will never have heard of the term 'Weberian', and 'turn off' at this point. Other will click on the link and then behold an entire detailed article which they must then comprehend to gain context of the paragraph in the Rawat article. Surely, it would be better if we wrote the article as 'self contained' biography, with optional links to further detail for those wishing to study the subject deeper. This is the case for most of this article, but this section is written in such a way that a reader has no choice but to understand terminology such as 'Weberian', in order to understand the section. Surely this section could be re-written to be self-explanatory, but with optional links to the academic material that do not have to be followed in order to get the 'jist' of this section? I will also await further opinions before discussing further 82.44.221.140 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the leading sentence can be re-written for clarity and readability, so that it explanins what the section is about. I will try and re-write that sentence, or maybe others would like to stab at it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 3. Would the leading sentence I added address your concern? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that's great. The leading sentence gives enough context to enable the reader to understand the section without having to research Weber. Thanks!. If I was to be picky I would suggest re-arranging the order of sentences so that you are first referring to the subject (Rawat) then adding the bit explaining Weber for context.82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I used Proposal #4's leading sentence to start the paragraph, continuing with the rest: User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentences "...describes Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma; she also observed that charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[14] ...David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public" frankly do not make much sense as written. They need a lot of work by someone who has English as a first language and who understands what the hell the original authors were trying to say. Is there such a person here? Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, that is what Bromley states, and we are attributing that opinion to him. That is all we do in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Geaves 2006

As you might have remarked on your watchlists I've been trying to work with Geaves' material this morning, that is: Geaves, Ron. "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-5, pp. 44-62. Web copy at asanas.org.uk

Now, there's something I'm not very clear about how to place it. As it pertains to the charismatic leadership and routinization topics relevant to the "Proposal2" page, I'd appreciate any help offered:

(p. 56) This brings the paper to the issue of authority.

Weber’s ideal charismatic authority, was not only unpredictable and unstable, requiring routinisation in order to provide continuity, but was also centred in the personal qualities of the charismatic leader and demanding obedience. Charisma and tradition are seen as having an antagonistic relationship with each other. Prem Rawat could be defined as charismatic only in the latter sense. He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques.

• I cannot help but see the following as placing some sort of a requirement: "Before I give you Knowledge, I will ask you for three promises. [...]"; including a prohibition: "The third promise I will ask for is not to reveal these techniques to anyone. [...]" [16]
• Then, Geaves also has been active to demonstrate the continuity of tradition that leads to what Rawat is today, e.g. Geaves, Ron (2002), "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)", paper delivered to the 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22–24 March 2002.

Far from wanting to override the assertions of an established professor with OR, I'm just asking a question: how do we tackle this when writing an encyclopedia? Obviously, one of the possible answers to that question could be: "NOT", let's leave that fishy business aside. But wouldn't that be a bit of an unsatisfactory answer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can introduce that material as needed, and I see no contradiction where you see one, or anything "fishy" as you assert. Asking for promise is not a prohibition, IMO. In fact, and as you probably know by now, there are those that chose not to abide by their earlier promise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the use of outer requirements or prohibitions, that in my understanding, refers to external changes such as changes in way of living, adopting certain external practices such as vegetarianism, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remarked the "outer" specification, and that is one of the details I'd still be inclined to call fishy (sorry, maybe I should find another word), anyway: bureaucratic and traditional leadership (the other two leadership types in Weberian sociology) are about "outer" requirements and rules (e.g. "Die bureaukratische Herrschaft ist spezifisch rational im Sinn der Bindung an diskursiv analysierbare Regeln, die charismatische spezifisch irrational im Sinn der Regelfremdheit. [...]" - my bolding) [17]; nonetheless a charismatic leader can ask things from his followers too, according to Weber with only one central characteristic: the requirements induced by the charismatic leader are "new" ("Material aber gilt für alle genuin charismatische Herrschaft der Satz: »es steht geschrieben, – ich aber sage euch«; der genuine Prophet sowohl wie der genuine Kriegsfürst wie jeder genuine Führer überhaupt verkündet, schafft, fordert neue Gebote [...]" - Weber's emphasis). Weber does not indicate that requirements or prohibitions by a charismatic leader are characteristically "outer".

Geaves is messing things up. Sorry about that. I'd agree to quote him in Wikipedia as far as his RS status goes, but that's it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, sharply spotted, it’s an inconsistency in Geaves’ writing I hadn’t noted previously. There is however a bigger problem and that is that the proposed text commences with a contextualisation within Weberian terms – but the Geaves quote comes from a paper in which Geaves challenges the applicability of Weberian analysis to the article subject. For clarity the text needs to specify that Geaves is disagreeing with those scholars who reference Weber with approval – which then raises the question - if Geaves is a lone voice is it appropriate to even use him ? Previously it had been agreed that Geaves would only be used for non controversial references. As Geaves is a subject to be mediated perhaps it would simply be best to omit him from all controversial contexts until there is consensus on his use in all the Rawat related articles ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. "the Geaves quote comes from a paper in which Geaves challenges the applicability of Weberian analysis to the article subject" - I fail to see where Geaves would be doing that in that article. Please clarify.

Geaves is confused on how to apply the analysis, but that's different from challenging the validity of such analysis.

On a side note, note that your analysis here is also partly confused on how to apply the sociological analysis, in that you seem to attach too much importance to Rawat having a board seat or an executive function in his organisations in order to be classified as a charismatic leader... A charismatic leader would typically not need such bureaucratic entanglements to exert his or her leadership: such arguments miss the point.

Imho, Rawat is still, to a certain degree, a charismatic leader. Maybe less than he was before: routinization (and I see Geaves as someone heavily contributing to the routinization efforts) can not be upheld ad infinitum without ultimately leading to a more bureaucratic type of leadership. But that analysis of mine is of no relevance to the appreciation of Geaves, a professor, as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Maybe we could limit his use as a source to strictly "religion" topics, as that is his speciality, while, for instance, sociology clearly isn't. Even if he has such other topics on his resume, see 2nd paragraph of Ron Geaves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Surely Geaves is arguing that Weber’s theory of charisma does not apply to Rawat, except in the very limited sense that (according to Geaves) Rawat is antagonistic to tradition:

Prem Rawat’s teachings make no reference to any traditional authority, neither person nor text. The shift in language, directly appealing to human understandings of their own existential dilemma, removed the earlier and more Indian- orientated style of a traditional Sant idiom that could be grounded in reference to previous sacred figures and texts, providing authenticity by comparison and asserting that the message conformed to the ‘real’ meaning of sacred text. This brings the paper to the issue of authority. Weber’s ideal charismatic authority, was not only unpredictable and unstable, requiring routinisation in order to provide continuity, but was also centred in the personal qualities of the charismatic leader and demanding obedience. Charisma and tradition are seen as having an antagonistic relationship with each other. Prem Rawat could be defined as charismatic only in the latter sense. He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques. The simple axiom, “If you like it, practice it, if you don’t, try something else,” is applied on frequent occasions in his public discourses. Neither does Prem Rawat regard himself as an exemplary leader, a role often ascribed to religious founders. I don’t see how this does not stand in direct contradiction to what the other sources are saying.

In respect of my criticism of Geaves, it is quite possible that I’m confused about the application of Weberian theory – but I don’t think in that particular case that I am; however others have also questioned the implications of authoritarian versus charismatic leadership aspects of that article so some form of amendment would be desirable if only for the sake of clarity. I fully accept that Rawat is in Weberian terms (and in commonly understood usage) a charismatic leader. Regarding Geaves academic standing as relevant as a WP:reference, Geaves is not as such a ‘religious scholar’ in that WP redirects Religious Scholar to Theology, Geaves being neither a theologian nor a philosopher, but more closely a ‘sociologist of Religion’, – this is from a personal webpage published by Geaves some years ago. “ I do have a personal position. I am an 'experiential essentialist' in the line of Professor Ninian Smart, Professsor Geoffrey Parrinder and other eminent pioneers of my discipline. I am very proud and honoured to follow in their footsteps, especially after being awarded my Chair in Religious Studies this year. My ethics are simple - the study of religion is a critical valuation that is combined with a sensitive grasp of world views. There is nothing in the article that contradicts this position.” And from Ninian Smart “Religious Studies as a non-confessional, methodologically agnostic discipline takes its place in the secular academy, where it draw heavily on anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, archeology, and other disciplines. At bottom, it has a place in the public or state sector because, as an aspect of human experience, it is also the study of people--of what they believe, why they believe and act as they do, both individually and within society.” Geaves’ degree was in Humanities and his Phd clearly followed a ‘social sciences’ approach, so it is difficult to argue that sociology is not his ‘specialty’, albeit that he has specialised in the study of religion.

I think your identification of Geaves as “someone heavily contributing to the routinization efforts” is relevant to the question of using Geaves as source for the Rawat articles because it sets very clearly Geaves own role as an interested party in the Rawat history. The same area of problem would arise if Joseph Goebbels was to be quoted as if he were a disinterested source in a biography of Hitler. In any event your Proposal 4. avoids all the major problems and although I think the Pilarscyk quote was useful perhaps it is simply safer to go with what you have.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to pass opinions about scholars, why are we putting Geaves under a microscope while avoiding scrutinity of other scholars? This discussion is better had off-wiki. Here we attribute significant opinions to those that hold them, and nothing more. 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments. The answer to your question is that Geaves is a recognised area requiring mediation and therefore inevitably part of the ongoing discussion regarding the Prem Rawat articles see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Divine_Light_Mission#Issues_to_be_Mediated. If you believe other quoted sources require examination then you are free to place your arguments for that on the relevant talk page. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As a public critic of Geaves, I would argue that extending your critique to these pages is neither welcome, not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no prohibtion on users participating in talk page discussions even when they have outside conflicts of interest. The legitimacy of sources is one of the main issues in the mediation, so it's an appropriate discussion for all of us. So long as we remember that Geaves is a living person we can discuss his scholarly work freely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

@Jossi, please concentrate on the content of the contribution, not on who wrote it. WP:NPA 1.0

This is a talk page, there's no apriorism against any contributor depending on prior history, nor on what they do in public.

Further, remember you're a guest like we all are in Steve's user space on this page: if you're not sure whether something is appropriate or not, maybe consult Steve about it, but don't start generalizing before you did: whether something "is" welcome here or not doesn't look like the most favourable format to vent your personal opinion imho. (Just on this, yes, while it's my userspace, this is more a place to facilitate productive discussion, and not a place where I "govern" the discussion, per se.) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Nik's comment: further misses the point imho. In the Weberian approach both authority and leadership are acceptable and often used translations of his German term Herrschaft: in his sociological analysis there are three flavours of Herrschaft: (1) charismatic; (2) bureaucratic; (3) traditional (sorry for the repeats, this is not the first time this is explained on this page). In that context "[...] authoritarian versus charismatic leadership [...]" is void of meaning: "authoritarian leadership" is a synonym to "authoritarian authority" which is a tautological tautology. "Authoritarian" does not correspond to any of the three basic Weberian categories of authority. Note that I really had to force myself to continue reading after your first sentence, making a first mistake: "Weber’s theory of charisma" is a phantom - it does not exist. Weber's theory is on authority, he does not treat aspects of charisma outside its relation to authority, in other words: whether a monastic recluse has charisma is of no relevance to a sociological analysis, while there's no leadership or authority in a social sense involved.

Re. use of Geaves as a source: I was kind of afraid that if we cut off all non-religion disciplines from his approach not much would be left (that is: if we take the Smart quote as a reference). Yeah, Geaves sounds kind of hollow. He doesn't even get the name of one of Rawat's organisations right ("history" is one of the other disciplines involved in Geaves' approach to religion: one of the first expectations one might have regarding a historian, is that he would get his terminology right). But as said, again: this has little or no influence on the use of Geaves as a source in Wikipedia. He's a professor, and as long as he's in his field of expertise, and is published on it by a reliable publisher, that's about as good as it gets reliability-wise for sources in Wikipedia context. But for me, that's one of the aspects that makes Rawat completely and utterly boring, repeating my first intuition on this subject, before I had even heard about Geaves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification. I don't disagree with Francis' analysis of Weber at all, my comment related specifically to critics of my criticism of Geaves who were arguing from an non Weberian perspective - I'm not suggesting that should inform this article. However, while I support the construction of Proposal 4, I do think it could be enhanced (given that Geaves' takes the discussion away from a purely Weberian context) by the inclusion of Pilarzyk or some alternate source providing a non Weberian perspective.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More DuPertuis

I've read through her work a couple of times now, and I think I'd like to take a crack at a summary, but just focus on her for the moment. Should I do that here, or should I take up a prop slot on the "User Page"? Mael-Num (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An approach that we've discussed avoiding is using standalone summaries of scholars. Some prior versions of the bio and the criticism article had paragraphs each devoted to attempts at summarizing sometimes very long works, but which often were little more than quotations or single points being made out of context. The other approach is topical: to cover topics and include there what all the significant scholars and other sources say about those topics. Now some academic papers have very narrow subjects, and so their entire scope fits within a topic. I expect that's the case with the DuPertuis paper. Even so, I suggest framing the matter as "here's what DuPertuis has written about Prem Rawat's charismatic leadership", rather than "here are DuPertuis's views on Prem Rawat". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to make this edit

Unless there are objections substantiated with solid arguments, or any alternative proposals, it is time to make this edit per proposal #3. It is about time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a chapter/paragraph number for footnote 18. I'm not even sure that formulation of Weber's definition is in that book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added "as cited in" + ref and page number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• What's the rush? I simply do not have the time to work on more than one proposal at a time right now, we have *16* to deal with for proposal 1 already. When I am finished with proposal 1, I'll start looking at proposal 2. There is no hurry, we don't have a deadline, so it's not "about time". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mael-Num indicated above that he wanted to work on the DuPertuis material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no real rush, however, we should try and make progress as, well, quickly as possible. We are all keen (including myself), to make progress, and progress has recently been made. I think the key here is about getting the balance right, not too quick, not too slow. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "No rush" is applicable when something is rushed. This is not the case with this proposal, which as been made 10 days ago. If an editor wants to study DuPertuis, Geaves, or any other scholar, he/she is free to do so without impinging progress. Unless there are any proposals or objections substantiated by solid arguments, this edit needs to be made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "This edit needs to be made"... Why? And why right this second? Wasn't it you that was just asking us to slow down on proposal 1?(yes it was), now you want us to speed up on proposal 2? Again, why? What is the problem with working with them in order? Is there some kind of timeline I need to know about? Proposal 1 has been on the table longer than 10 days, we haven't inserted that edit yet. You wanting this edit all of a sudden does not constitute consensus. If you think you have consensus, a straw poll would help confirm that, and then we can move forward. I haven't seen anything like consensus on this proposal yet, and it feels a little bit like you trying to make an end-run around the process while the rest of the involved editors are focused on proposal 1. I'm not saying it is (that might be considered lacking good faith), but it does look a little bit like that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I will only respond to substantive arguments about content. The process has already been established, and silence, the lack of substantiated arguments, or lack of proposals, is a sign of consensus. If you have something to offer on the content, please do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, what has happened with Proposal 3 and 4? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, I think we're talking about Proposal 2, proposal 3 (capital P, little p). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 3 fails to note that DuPertius is a former student, and the paragraph seems overly concerned with the definition of a "charismatic leader", and less about whether it applies to Rawat or not, and most importantly, why it's relevant. Further, the reference to Hunt suddenly comes out of nowhere, who is he? (Obviously *I* know, but why would the reader unless he's already been mentioned). So I guess, yes, there are solidly substantiated arguments against this edit as it stands. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) (a) "former student"? Source?; (b) The paragraph is an extension of what is in the article already, see User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 0; (c) The proposal it is all meticulously sourced to material in scholarly sources related to Rawat and Charismatic leadership; and (d) the proposal has been online for 10 days, plenty of time for editors to comment, debate, and make alternative proposals. So, as said above, unless there are objections raised substantiated by solid arguments, or counter proposals offered, there is no reason not to do this edit. That is the reason we have this proposal pages, and that is the process we all agreed to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Per Downton, added info about DuPertuis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I didn't agree to edit this article on your schedule, and you didn't answer my questions about why it needs to be done so urgently. I still don't see consensus here, that's what I agreed to work towards. Add that to the fact that a 30 second glance at the paragraph revealed problems with it, clearly indicates that this needs more review. Additionally, Mael-Num (not me, don't get confused), has already stated he has alterations he would like to make as well. CLEARLY, we're not done with this proposal. No hurry, let's get it right. Steve, are you happy we have a consensus here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't been around today to make the edit I promised. I've been a bit under the weather, and mostly resting. I'll put together an alterternate wording proposal ASAP tomorrow, but I completely understand if you guys would prefer to move forward sooner. Mael-Num (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • No problems. Look forward to your ideas on how to improve this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I put my take on DuPertuis up at Prop 2.15. I dropped the part about members taking the "Do-It-Yourself" approach to enlightenment, because even though her conclusions are very interesting, it says more about the DLM movement of the 70's than it does about Rawat himself. For what it's worth, I did a little rework of that section as well, and I'd like to see her cited somewhere in the DLM article, because like I said, I think it is interesting stuff:

As rival gurus appeared and societal criticism increased, DLM withdrew into introversionism. Over several years, followers increased in competence in meditation and confidence in its results. For many, this led to deeper belief in Maharaj Ji as Satguru, while others learned to "experience God" on their own and drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.

Maybe combining some of that back into the piece and omitting some of Prop 15 as it is right now would be more to peoples' tastes, or even omitting this entirely and just keeping what we have already. I'm completely open to all suggestions. Mael-Num (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your proposal to #6, to keep the sequence, and incorporated your text into Proposal#3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that per DuPertuis, the text you want removed refers to the specifics of Rawat's charisma and thus appropriate for this section. I have kept that text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it is about Rawat's charisma, but somewhat tangentially, because it describes how it impacted the movement (i.e. the DLM). I removed it primarily due to space considerations, and given that the rest of it speaks more directly of Rawat and is coherant as a section all its own, it seemed natural to remove it. If space isn't a problem, leave it in, or mix n' match. Whatever you guys think works best. Mael-Num (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mael-Num. I think that this section is becoming one of the most neutral and informative in the article. Hope we can do the edit soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh...er...I should probably have read what version went back in before I wrote that. This:

She also observed that Rawat's charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment

Isn't exactly what she's saying, at least I don't think so. While I agree that, logically, one can conclude that Rawat's charisma didn't impede his followers from leaving, I'm not sure that's as accurate a summary as possible. A closer version of what she was saying would be that, as followers increased their abilities in meditation, some felt increasingly assured of Rawat's position of Master, while others did not and drifted away, none-the-less spiritually fulfilled by their personal revelations. I'm not sure if it would be considered synthesis of ideas or simply original research, or perhaps neither and I'm just of the wrong opinion here, but I'm not 100% comfortable with putting it quite that way. Mael-Num (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I think it is a good summary of her conclusion. In it she speaks of "Continued adherence to this religion depended on acceptance of this linkage of experiences (i.e. "imputation of charisma on three interrelated levels") as well as continued meditational efforts to achieve them" as it relates to the charisma of the leader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All the same, maybe wording to this effect?

DuPertuis further observed that practice in meditation and satsang led many followers to deeper belief in Rawat, while others learned to "experience God" on their own and drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment."

It's a subtle difference, but she seems (to me) not to be saying that people "found enlightenment" in spite of Rawat's charisma, but rather as a result of the exploration of that charismatic authority. Maybe I'm just picking nits, but in the back of my mind I imagine DuPertuis reading our summary and saying, "You guys got it wrong." A couple of other things:

• DuPertuis talks a bit about popular culture's influence on Rawat's message and followers (including this "drifting"), but due to space constraints and questionable relevance it's been omitted
• DuPertuis talks about most of this in the context of a religion, but I tried to avoid the "R" word because it was my understanding that Rawat considers his teachings to be philosophical in nature at this time
• Wasn't she one of Rawat's followers? I might have missed it, but I didn't see that mentioned in "How People Recognize Charisma". It might be important, it might not. She is rather...glowing in her take on all this, though.

Not sure if what I wrote is good or bad or right or wrong with respect to that information, but I figured it was best to mention it. Mael-Num (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good summary, Mael, missing only the connection to charisma that she makes in her paper. Can you try to incorporate it tp your summary. And yes, she was a follower when she wrote that paper (see the footnote). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Thomas/Tom Pilarzyk?

I am trying to find who is this person. All I can find is one book about Yoga under his name[18], no bio or curriculum vitae. Does anybody what are this person's credentials? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) More problems with proposal 3? Good thing we didn't rush to add this edit before it had been properly scrutinized. I look forward to examining it further tomorrow. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No problems. Just an addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this:

Tom Pilarzyk is a certified Kripalu yoga instructor at Seven Stones Center for Wellness and at Yama Yoga Studio in the Third Ward.[19]

Will add qualifications to the proposal, as per other authors. He is a yoga instructor of the Kripalu branch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same person? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems more liekly that he's the Thomas Pilzaryk who's "Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Marymount College of Kansas". [20] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He's certainy the same Thomas Pilzaryk of the Urban Social Institutions Program at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[21] There was also a Thomas Pilarzyk in the Sociology department of Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.[22] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the paper itself, which clearly says that he's at Marymount.[23] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked and this is the deal. He has/had an administrative role in a Milwaukee college. He is a yoga teacher. And he is also described as a social scientist, with a Phd. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1978 - Thomas Pilarzyk Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Mary-Mount College of Kansas.

• 2003 and forward: Thomas Pilarzyk Director, Enrollment Services Milwaukee Area Technical College [24]

• 2007 Tom Pilarzyk is a social scientist, college administrator and certified Kripalu yoga teacher at Seven Stones Center for Wellness in Milwaukee. He is a regular contributor to Milwaukee Yoga Magazine and city yoga magazines elsewhere. He has also published academic articles on Hinduism in America. [25]

  2007? appears it was published in July - August 2005, with a web page copyright of 2006? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Will add this info in a summary format. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Is a job that he holds 30 years after writing the paper really significant? Are we checking the current employment status of the other authors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) Too extended: we quote Pilarzyk on Rawat from a 1978 paper, we don't usually add qualifications for sources regarding what happened to them in later life. We don't add "doctor in Medicine" for Schnabel when quoting from a book he wrote just before becoming a doctor in medicine; we don't add "one of the most influential people of the Netherlands" for Schnabel, although that's what he became in the early 21st century. We quote Schnabel on a 1982 book, so what he was at the time is more than sufficient for a qualification. All this was considered self-evident some time ago, confirmed by Jossi. We don't even know Pilarzyk had anything to do with yoga in 1978. The intro to Pilzaryk's 1978 paper gives a short qualification for this person applicable at the time when writing the article. Any more bio info on this person should go in a bio article on this person (if there's enough notability for such subject), but is redundant in a Rawat bio when quoting Pilarzyk as a source. Note that we don't give any qualifications on some of the sources most frequently used in the article (Melton: ? ; Cagan : ? ; NYT: ?). For those lesser known a single qualifier (social scientist; sociologist; professor of religion;... or whatever most applicable) should suffise: the article should focus on Rawat, not the sources, and even for info on Rawat, because of length of the text we will be pruning the article, and pruning again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Pilarzyk does not have an article in Wikipedia, such as we have for Hunt, Geaves, Melton, Hadden, Downton, and many others. So I see no problem in providing some context about who this person is. One thing we could do is to make the material available in the footnote, and apply same standard to other lesser known authors such as DuPertuis. I will do that on my proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Moved biographical info of these lesser known authors, to the footnotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not favouring this. The footnote apparatus should be trimmed, not extended. This isn't a bio article, except on Rawat. Complaints on the footnotes being overloaded have been voiced (by others than me, although I did more than my share in the trimming), and then you more than doubled the bios when moving them to footnotes... this "extended short bio" development (whether in the body or the footnotes) is imho really not the way to go. For every bit of info on Rawat we require multiple solid sources, and then we start inserting info on other living people gathered from websites that wouldn't pass WP:RSN if they'd be the sole publisher on an information bit regarding Rawat. And again, certainly no bio information beyond the point where they published the most recent article we cite on these authors. This was agreed upon before, I hope I don't have to go look for the diffs where and when you promoted this approach.
      I'm not saying this isn't interesting, but it doesn't belong. And Jossi, imho doesn't do justice to your good work on this proposal2 page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • The references/notes for the proposal, seem to be appropriate for the text. I do not see any issues with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious as well, why is yoga important to his status as a scholar? I work out, but I don't put that on my résumé. Mael-Num (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• It appears to be a second career, or a retirement activity, and doesn't wouldn't be relevant to his authority as a scholar. If Dupertuis later took up painting, for example, we wouldn't addd "painter" to her description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. He wrote a few papers on the 70's and that is all his academic work. Now he works in an administrative role, and in the weekends he works as a yoga teacher. Clearly not a notable scholar as others that we have used in these articles. The question for me is: is this important information for our readers, yes or no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Compared to DuPertuis, Pilarzyk sems equally obscure. I don't think that overall notability is an issue. Pilarzyk's paper has been cited widely. and that's the important aspect. A weekend job 30 years later doesn't have anything to do with his paper, or with Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am asking a simple question. Is this important information (both about Dupertuis and Pilarzyk) for our readers, given that these authors do not have Wikipedia articles about them, yes, or no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the footnoted text for both these authors:

• DuPertuis, Chair of Sociology at the University of Guam and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission
• Pilarzyk is a social scientist, college administrator and certified Kripalu yoga teacher at Seven Stones Center for Wellness in Milwaukee. He is a regular contributor to Milwaukee Yoga Magazine and city yoga magazines elsewhere. He has also published academic articles on Hinduism in America.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • No to Pilarzyk, yes to Dupertuis, her information is still directly related to this article, although "and follower" seems a little vague to me.. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The issue surely is the quality,scope and relevance of Pilarzyk's analysis; looking only for high profile authors for a subject like Rawat/DLM is going to limit the sources to an unhelpful degree. Pilarzyk offers a persective not offered by other writers and his work is academically valid.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is an unhelpful direction. No one is contesting that hese are worthwhile scholars. If we really feel the need to fully identify Pilarzyk then his position as chair of the sociology dept. should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...and take out the yoga references from his bio. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK. I see that there is this sudden defense of Pilarzik as he was the best thing since slice bread. I will remove all descriptions of credentials from Pilrzyk and DuPertuis and let the readers wonder go the hell these two people are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that's necesary either. It's sufficient to identify them both as "sociologists" at a minimum. DuPertuis' status as a follower should also be mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If push came to shove, I'd take sliced bread over Pilarzyk. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 6

• Attempt to combine the acuracy of Prop.4 with the detail of other Propos.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 4 and 6 contain original research: In Rawat's case, the factor "exemplary character" is seen as irrelevant: That is WP:SYN.
• Pilarzyk, who did not refer to Weber directly, more WP:OR
• The sentence that starts with the development of the DLM in America had, is not related to the subject of this section
• Geaves states that "Rawat is not a renunciate" and "he has gone to great lengths to assert his humanity and deconstruct the hagiography that has developed around his life." Added to proposal #13

I do not see this proposal as being any superior to Proposal #3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Prop. 6 edited per concerns of WP:SYN and WP:OR--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The contention that The sentence that starts with the development of the DLM in America had, is not related to the subject of this section is false, the sentence relates directly to the following sentence which identifies Weber, and is substantiated by the associated footnote.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have listed reference 28, and that does not contain any footnotes. Also, you have not responded to the WP:OR]] violations pointed out above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely the most boring bunch of pseudo-intellectual cr*p I have ever read. The sentence Dupertuis, working from the statement that “in Weber's formulations, charisma clearly appears in the eyes of the beholders” concluded that Rawat's role as a Master as emerged from both theological and experiential aspects, and was not the sole focus or generator of charisma does not even make sense, no matter how many times you read it. Does this matter? Does anyone care? Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the stray 'as', it's now removed. As the sources for Rawat/DLM/Elan Vital are predominantly sociologists, the nature of any encyclopaedia article on these subjects inevitably needs to address the sociological perspectives in which the sources are couched. That's intellectual not pseudo-intellectual or crap; perhaps if you are not happy with what is proposed you could furnish an alternative proposal which addresses the sources as they are not how you would wish them to be ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Its removal isn't all that helpful. I would wish them to be comprehensible and say something worthwhile, that's all. I have worked many years as a translator, and the job there is to take something that does not make sense (in the target language) and make it understandable to the reader. It is a type of paraphrasing. Attempting to paraphrase this stuff reveals it for what it is, mere verbal gameplaying. Such puffery is not only devoid of meaning but actively hostile to it. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposal, as it stands, adds nothing to the hard work done for 10 days in proposal#3, and contains several WP:OR violations. Not usable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And this edit, with an edit summary of Edited per OR concerns, is ludicrous. It does not respond to the violations argued in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose to move ahead with Proposal #3

Proposal #3 has been edited with the input of many editors actively contributing. At this stage I see no new proposals that are devoid of problems or that challenge the sources or the text used in Proposal #3. I propose to move forward and make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to referring to scholars simply as "DuPertuis" and "Pilarzyk". Please change the first mentions to something like "Lucy DuPeruis, sociologist" and "Thomas Pilarzyk, sociologist", so that readers will know who we're discussing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

?? It is there. Pilarzyk is described as a social scientist, per our sources, and DuPertuis as a sociologist and follower. Please re-read the text of the proposal. It is #3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - I'm not sure what I was looking at. Why not describe Pilarzyk as a "sociologist"? He was chairman of a sociology department. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources we found say "social scientist". He has a Ph.D. but I am not sure on what. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources called him "Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Marymount College of Kansas." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But what we do not know is if he was a sociologist or not. I have been unable to find info about his studies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(What is the problem with social scientist? He could have been an Indologist, or an Anthropologist, for example. I am missing something? ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

According to your link, "social science" includes: Anthropology, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, Social Work, and Sociology. I've never heard of a college that lumped sociology and history into one department. Clearly the guy is a sociologist. OTOH, if you want to be fair, we can call of these schoalrs "social scientists", since that catchall term would include them all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the guy is a sociologist. Are you sure? I am not, and that is why I hesitate, prefering to use what the sources asy. It is not a big deal, or is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. [26] He undertook graduate work in sociology - Changed to "sociologist". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any other comments on Proposal #3? If there aren't any, we should make this edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely unimpressed by this sort of material, but then I am unimpressed by sociology. This is not a POV issue, I just think that particular branch of learning disappeared up its own fundamental orifice some decades ago and is only now starting to realise it. All right, maybe it is a POV issue. Put it in. The discerning eye will recognise the gobbledegook and jump over it. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton: Regardless of your disinterest in Sociology, this material is well sourced and relevant for this article. I take your comment as being "I don't like it, but I do not object". Would that be a correct assessment of your comment?

Yes. But "disinterest" is not quite right. Contempt is closer. "Don't like it" is spot on. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The last phrase, ", and that Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition" is Geaves 2006, not Hunt 2003 (at least, not what is quoted from Hunt here: Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Hunt).
• The bolded part "[Stephen J. Hunt describes Rawat's charisma] in a similar manner [as Geaves]," appears OR-ish: Geaves discusses the leadership/authority aspect of Rawat's charisma, Hunt appears to use the term charisma without implying its sociological dimension (it's not clear whether he does or not, but implying he does would be OR). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will fix these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just another small thought: maybe put Hunt before Geaves, then the "similar description" for the first part of what is attributed to Geaves 2006 wouldn't even be wrong. And "2003" comes before "2006" (although there's no obligation to follow a chronological order of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's still some footnote work, e.g. the Geaves 2006 ref currently in the Rawat article gives the link to the PDF version of Geaves' article at the publisher's website, etc. But that's maybe easier to adjust after transferral to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to pdf added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a well written section. Happy for it to be inserted into the PR article.Momento (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Identical to prop 3, apart from some minor things I happened to think of:

• linking first occurence of "routinized" - this was suggested long ago (I mean before the prop2 page was started);
• adding refs to first sentence.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, all you people who feel this stuff adds something worthwhile to the article. David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. What does this mean? Is he saying that Prem Rawat ever claimed to "not suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits"? I think auxilliary sources would be needed if that was the case. Or is he implying that any charismatic leader worth his salt would make that claim, then have difficulty proving it? He doesn't clearly say which he meant, which makes it just waffle, weasel words. Like most of sociology. IMO. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • @Rumiton: This is Bromley explaining the perception/expectations of others toward charismatic leaders. I will revise the sources yo make sure I did not mess it up. @Francis: Changes OK with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Time

I think it is time to make this edit. Steve? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll glance over it, and have a look. Steve Crossin (contact) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, it seems there is consensus for this edit, and it should be done. However, before doing so, another issue needs addressing. Some edits, as they stand, in the Prem Rawat article, have been objected to, and from the feedback I have received, it seems clear the edits have been disputed, and that consensus seems clear they should be undone. I have asked around, and due to the nature of this dispute, no one wants to undo the edit, therefore, I will have to do it myself. Understand that I am not questioning the edits myself, and that as a mediator, I have no opinion on the subject of the mediation, indeed, I knew nothing of Prem Rawat before I took this case, but in my judgment, it seems clear there are strong objections to a few edits, and as it is causing the dispute some issues, I see no alternative than to undo the edits personally. It's a complex change, but one I'll need to do before adding new text in. I'll be restoring to this edit, and reinserting the text I inserted from this proposal intermediate edits will have to be redone, I'm afraid. If there's a better way to do this, please let me know, and if there are objections, please let me know too, but it seems clear here. Steve Crossin (contact) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no: this is a talk page discussing proposal2, not a place to discuss unrelated reverts that have no consensus. If everyone agrees to User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 7 it can be operated, but take the discussions on the other changes elsewhere (such discussions have already been taking place in several places including a WP:ANI discussion where none of the uninvolved commentators advised such revert). Even bringing an RfC here (what is the least that should be done if you insist on discussing these other changes here) would be WP:FORUMSHOP. I don't agree to these other reverts, for reasons I have given elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Francis, with respect, I brought it here as another major edit is about to be made. What do you propose as a solution here? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Re. User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 7: implement it at Prem Rawat;
  • Re. other changes: what I wrote at User talk:Steve Crossin/Prem Rawat#Jossi should remove all his unjustified abrasive comments: I see no compelling reason to discuss that here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fair enough. Proposal will be implemented, as for reverting to previous versions, and considering this, I am saddened that I've been put between a rock and a hard place, this case is hard enough as it is, and things like this aren't making it any easier. For now, let's just work on this proposal system, and we can re-visit these other concerns later, or perhaps, they will be resolved through a proposal on that section. But I must say, I'm saddened that I've been put into such a tricky position, one where I have to choose between bad options. But hey, I guess it comes with the job. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I more than respect you for your efforts. Yes, this could be easier. It's not my choice though to make it that difficult. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• No, I just think it's all of the current issues compiled. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm happy to revert to this edit as you propose.Momento (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Urgent question. Where exactly in Prem Rawat does this proposal go? Just a link to the section will be fine. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It replaces this section: Prem Rawat#Authority --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rocks and hard places is, as you say, the name of the game. Some of my own brilliant edits will have to be redone, but no biggie. Rumiton (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) As a German philosopher said, Nicht ärgern, nur wundern. Translate it, somebody, I have tried and can't. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

('Don't be angry, just be amazed') ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 3

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal 1 Millennium '73 was an important event in the life of the subject. However by many accounts he had little active involvement in it besides his role as centerpiece. The event is covered in detail at Divine Light Mission#Millennium '73. All this article needs is a summary. Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additonal material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. But details about the DLM, its finances, and so on are out of place. Let's avoid unneccessary duplication between articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additional material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. I would like to see what material will be included before I comment on this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I'm not planning to add any more. I was leaving the door open for others to propose more material if they wanted to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Could you double-check your version of Melton re the passage "the failure of the event to meet expectations generated negative publicity and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt"? Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992, p. 219) does not mention negative publicity resulting from the event; the passage on Millennium reads, "... an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji's father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs." --Jayen466 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Collier mentions the negative publicity, but we can find a better source. Let me dig through my research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) I can't find a source besides Collier that refers specifically to negative publicity. The status of Collier as a source is in mediation limbo. Downton says that "Many followers were disappointed", so I've replaced the "publicity" with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) PS: The L.A. Times reports that: Only 20,000 people showed up and the group felt it was portrayed poorly by the media. MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979 pg. A1 Maybe something else will show up too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Putting in that the festival was a "failure" and then sayig it was said to be "the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]" is laughably non-NPOV. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Proprosals 1 and 3 both suffer from this defect. Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Please explain. We have numerous sources that say the festival was a "failure", "fiasco", etc. We also have plenty of sources that the DLM went downhill after that, both in terms of membership and media coverage. These are sourced assertions, presented neutrally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I am starting to think Will stands for wilfully obtuse. To state that the high point of someone's life work was a "failure" is not neutrality. Far from neutrality. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Ready? It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC) If you're refering to Proposal 3, Proposal 1, I agree. It's not necessary to mention "Hans Jayanti" because that festival was always known as "Millennium" even though it was scheduled around the anniversary of the date of Shri Hans's birthday, which is November 9th. To mention "Hans Jayanti" is extraneous information that is meaningless to readers. Note (again) about these proposal pages: I don't know about anyone else, but I find the way these proposal pages are set to be unwieldy. It goes against the grain of my decades-long experience in technical, procedural manual, and business writing. These page headings must include the title of the specific proposals, eg, "Proposal 3 - DLM Millennium," (so one doesn't have to write down on paper what these edit drafts respresent -- especially in this the age of technology!). Then each "proposal proposal" (that labeling just goes again my grain!) :) should be labeled "Draft1, 2, 3..." not "Proposal 1, 2, 3..." and should include editor's signature. I dunno what the big problem is with making this process more simple -- I already proposed this to Steve and got no response. I don't have eight hours a day to devote to Wikipedia as some other do. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Indeed, and your comment wasn't ignored. Generally, these mediation cases only have one proposal page, this is the first case that has had more than one proposals page. I could do a page move to a more descriptive title, however I really am not so sure how it would be very, well useful. I generally think that on these pages, they shouldn't be signed with 4 tildes, I used this idea in the Second Intifada case, and the editors discussed each version on the article talk page. Now, signing the comments, I suppose you can if you really want to, but I don't see the necessity, it could cause issues, such as, "Editor X wrote proposal Y, look at their bias by mentioning/including/not including Z". Could cause some issues. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Steve. I didn't say you ignored me, I said I got no response.  :) Anyway, even though I think the way you've set these proposal pages is tedious and unwieldy, I have a request that when folks are talking about a particular Proposal of a Proposal (which should be titled "Draft" for ease of reference) on the corresponding talk pages, it would be very helpful if editors would be so kind as to preface their discussion with the proposal number to which they are referring. Btw, looking over the Second Intifada page didn't demonstrate anything to me at all, so I'm not sure what your point was. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I was referring to the Second Intifada talk page, in the large collpasible box, but never mind :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC) To Sylvicyn regarding the Hans Jayanti festival: This was also discussed at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Prop. 5. My reasoning is that the Hans Jayanti was an important biographical event in two successive years, 1972 and '73. Since it's mentioned twice it's a useful detail. I'm not tied to including it, I just think it's easier to include than to exclude it. If other editors prefer to delete it I won't object. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks Will. Hans Jayanti (HJ) was an annual festival held on or about November 9th, not just in 1972 and 1973. I don't feel strongly either way about keeping the reference to HJ, but I've never, ever heard of "Millennium 73" referred to as the "renamed Hans Jayanti festival." What does the source(s) say about it? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The text (in Prop.1) says The Hans Janyanti of 1973, called "Millennium '73",... The source (in the DLM article) says: So when the DLM's annual Hans Jayanti [= birthday] festival drew near, although it has been traditionally held in India, the decision was made to move the show to America. I suggest reading the existing paragraphs in Prem Rawat to see how the festival information appears in the context of events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 2 An editor has posted "Proposal 2". Could he please describe the changes from Proposal 1 and explain the reasoning? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Certainly. Numerous sources describe SatPal and Davis as the "main organizers" and they should be identified as such and the source provided doesn't mention any other organizers. The assertion "the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed followers" is contradicted by "premies were reported to be "cheerful, friendly and unruffled, and seemed nourished by their faith". No source provided for " The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]". In any case, we should stick with facts rather than opinions.Momento (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Numerous sources say all kinds of things about the festival, and we're doing our best to report them all in the DL article. I'll change the desciption of the organizers to meet your objection that it implies there are more of them. You deleted this sourced info: "Called the "youth culture event of the year"[40], the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed followers[41] and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt.[42] The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]" That "[43]" is a source. That's all sourced info. The fact that members were smiling during the event doesn't mean that they weren't disappointed. Even Collier describes how disappointed she was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) That's right Will, and you deleted twice as much sourced material in your proposal. You deleted "Though it was not covered by the national television news, it did get extensive coverage in the print media and was depicted in the award-winning U.S. documentary "Lord of the Universe". And deleted "The premies were reported to be "cheerful, friendly and unruffled, and seemed nourished by their faith". To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat 'was a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters". Other reporters found a "confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas.'" And removed "According to Thomas Pilarzyk, the Millennium economic deficit was partially the result of poor management by the "holy family", Rawat's mother and three older brothers as well as the much lower than anticipated attendance. Consequently, the festival necessitated policy shifts within the movement organization". All sourced material. Why do you keep complaining about my edits when you do exactly the same thing? This is about distilling the DLM version to make a more suitable version for the PR article.Momento (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The exact amount of the debt isn't the most relevant to the subject and is the kind of thing better left to the full treatment at DLM. The quote "youth culture event of the year" is also not highly relevant, so we can leave it off too. However information about the subject's performance there, and other comments about him directly are appropriate and relevant. I'll prepare another draft to try to bridge the differences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Prop.3 I've posted Prop.3. It's drafted to incorporate some of the text from Prop.2 as well as the discussion on this page. It includes some assessment of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal #4 It is about time that editors make an effort to attribute opinions to those that hold them, rather than asserting these opinions as if they were facts (which are obviously not). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC) A) We dont' need to say "(a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday)," because we already explain that in the previous paragraph. B) What's our source that says it was Satpal Rawat and Rennie Davis who promoted the event as "the most significant event in human history"? That appears to be a false attribution. C) Downton say "many" followers were disappointed, not "some". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Corrected. The description: "the most significant event in human history" is attributed to Davis, no? The older brother was also a main organizer, no? Otherwise provide the source for the quote (which is not available in your proposal). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Is it attributed to Davis? I don't know where or by whom. Galanter says just that is was billed as "the most significant event in human history" without saying who was billing it that way. Olson says it was publicized as the most significant event in human history, also without saying who was doing the publicizing. Since the subject had a 50-member public relations team there's no reason to assume that Davis or Satpal Rawat weer the ones who came up with that slogan, or were responsible for promoting it that way. Of course, if you find a source that says differently then we can deal with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Is Mangalwadi talking about Rawat's prominence in the US? If so it should be stated.Momento (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Balyogeshwar reached the zenith of his popularity during the Millennium Festival 1973, in Houston. There his devotees declared him to be "the savior of the world" who was ushering in the thousand years of utopia. It would not be an esaggeration to say that at that time is popularity overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing. Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus. Vikas Publishing House New Delhi 1977. p.219 That's the reference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Fixed, staying close to the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The phrase "most holy and significant event in human history" is also mentioned in Sophia Collier's Soul Rush book, Chapter 12, "Millennium Fever," where she attributes it to Bal Bhagwan Ji, (BB) in her text, who is Sat Pal. I know Collier's book is being questioned as a source. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC) That detail could be added to the full treatement at DLM, but it's not necessary in this summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Unless there are any strong objections substantiated with solid arguments, I think this is ready for implementation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC) If the phrase "most holy and significant event in human history" is attributed to BBJ it should be. Mangalwadi's claim about Rawat's popularity should also include the extraordinary qualifier that his "popularity overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world". I have created Prop 5 to illustrate the changes.Momento (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The same phrase is also attribued to Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I know he referred to his father's birthday celebration Hans Jayanti in that way, not just Millennium Hans Jayanti. Did PR publicize Millennium as "the most holy and significant event in human history" or was that only Satpal Rawat?Momento (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, PR also used that phrase regarding Millennium 73. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also, there's more we can quote from Mangalwadi if we want to extend the quotation further. I fwe going to quote him as being the most popular ever we need to also say that the popularity dwindled to almost nothing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Momento's edits don't appear to be "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments". Isuggest we add the P4 text and then continue the discussion about further improvements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Mangalwadi wrote in 1977. The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that. Both relate to Millennium, which is the section we are discussing. The dwindling to nothing applies to a later, post Millennium period which is where that quote can be placed, along with Rawat's split from his mother, downsized DLM and turned his back on the media.Momento (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Do you have "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments"? I don't see any. Let's move forward with the text we've got and then continue discussing further improvements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yes. Saying someone reached the high of the popularity without explaining what that is is meaningless. Either the the whole description of his popularity at the time of the festival should be included or none. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Momento, you said that The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that.. Perhaps suggest how to do so? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I've done that in Prop 5.Momento (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Just about this source, for this piece of text, "...which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world.", that seems like a piece of text that may need an exceptional source, as it appears to be an exceptional claim. Is that boox availible on Google Books? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Steve, I've quoted some of the material in this section, see above. The author is a Vishal Mangalwadi. While he writes in a somewhat breezy-style, he is a valuable source because he's approaching the subject from an Indian perspective and context while most of the sources for this topic are Western. I can send you (or anyone who'd like it) a scan of the material if you email me a request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Steve's link doesn't work - did he mean the Mangalwadi material or the Downton?) Yes, I'd like to see it very much, not that I dispute the content at all. I'll send you an email right away, so be ready for it. Thanks, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Getting back to Momento's point, we have more sources than just Mangalwadi commenting about the Millennium (and the marriage) being the turning points of the popularity of the subject, some by name: "The 'Millennium 73' festival, a test of the guru's popularity, was a failure." [Marty 1984] "Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings ..." [Hunt 2003] "...first of a series of events which gradually led the Mission to withdraw from the public scene." [Melton 1986] "The disastrous 1973 rally changed the situation" [Bromley & Shupe 1981] "a major setback" ""the event failed; attendance was miniscule" [Melton 1986] "great disappointment...grave financial crisis" [Chryssides 2001] "fell far short of expectations" "a variety of millennial expectations, such as the arrival of world peace, failed to materialze and the whole undertaking left members of the movement disillusioned and in debt. "[Galanter 1989] "When the anticipated large crowds of people failed to manifest, the movement fell into deep debt, which effectively crippled it." [Lewis 2005] "In 1973, a disastrous rally at the Houston Astrodome left the movement in the United States in dire financial straits and bereft of credibility." Those are just the ones at hand. There are others that more specifically mention the Millenium festival and the marriage as turning points in the subject's prominence. I think we could devote three paragroah to the topic, but it'd be better to keep it shorter. Is there a reason to hold up the rest of the text while we seek agreement on this addition? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Just to note, I've seen the quoted text, and it says, from what I read, "It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the time his popularity overshadowed that of all gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing.". I think if it's made clear that this is the opinion of the writer, about the subject's popularity, and add somewhere, as neutrally as possible, that the popularity over time reduced (just so we aren't paraphrasing), I think that could work. Can the editors think of a way to do that? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Rather than interrupting the paragraph about the Millennium to talk about general popularity, why don't we move some of the material from the "follower" section up here and do a paragraph on the rising popularity of the subject in the same section, "Leaving India"? The "spectacular beginning" of Rawat and the "wild growth" of his following are worth noting. But it shouldn't be in the middle of the Millennium paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) That's up to the parties here, whatever works best is fine with me :-) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 4a This material comes at the end of the section. I suggest we split it and, as a separate paragraph create something like: The Hans Janyanti event of 1973, called "Millennium '73", was held in the Astrodome of Houston, Texas and was publicized as "the most significant event in human history". Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (known as Bal Bhagwan Ji) and activist Rennie Davis, the main organizers, predicted attendance of 100,000 or more but the event only attracted an estimated at 20,000 and left the DLM heavily in debt. According to Downton and other observers, the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed many followers. Vishal Mangalwadi described the festival as the he zenith of Rawat's popularity which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world. After starting with just a few followers in 1971 there was a "wild growth" of the Rawat's following. By 1973 it had grown to 50,000 in the U.S., etc, etc. That growth ended with the festival. According to Mangalwadi, it dwindled to almost nothing... Blah blah blah If we can agree to put in the first paragraph now, without the Mangalwadi at all, then we can make a new proposal about adding the popularity material that Momento wants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The rest of the above looks fine to me, but this Mangalwadi guy? Is he honestly saying Prem Rawat's popularity exceeded that of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? I think he is best discreetly ignored. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The underlying statement, that the Millennium marked the high point of Rawat's prominence, is both sourceable and obviously true. The other comments by Mangalwadi are less obvious. Anyway, again I suggest that we make the replacement of the text in the first paragraph with the paragraphs in the article now, and start a separate discussion about the popularity paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Due to time constrains, I may not be able to add to this debate. It seems you are doing well without my help here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) To recap, this propsoal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think Rawat's opinion that he considered the event "satisfactory" is necessary. Therefore "The Hans Janyanti event of 1973, called "Millennium '73", was held in the Astrodome of Houston, Texas and was publicized as "the most significant event in human history".[1] Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (known as Bal Bhagwan Ji) and activist Rennie Davis, the main organizers, predicted attendance of 100,000 or more but the event only attracted an estimated at 20,000 and left the DLM heavily in debt.[2] According to Downton and other observers, the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed many followers but Rawat expression his satisfaction with it.[3]Momento (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What's the source for Rawat's satisfaction? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I don't think that bringing up fresh items, one after another, is helpful for us to get to a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Can't find the source for "satisfaction" so let's ignore it until I can. And everybody is suggesting changes including you.Momento (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Do you accept the proposal I've outlined here? If not why not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I accept your proposal but it is necessary to put a "their" in "the failure of the event to meet their expectations disappointed many followers".Momento (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think that's neecssary, as it seems to have failed to meet everyone's expectations. But in the interest of consensus I'm willing to compromise. Is there anyone who disagrees with this proposal? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Many scholar's note that many American's had millennial expectations. And most non U.S. attendees and many Americans will have missed all the hype that Rennie, BBJ and the media created.Momento (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I can't see any value in Mangalwadi, as I said before. His prose is verging on hysteria. Nothing he says is new, and it is expressed much more mildly and soberly elsewhere. The hyperbole is not needed and does not help the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Maybe you're not clear on what the proposal is. This propsoal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. So we can discuss Mangalwadi in the next proposal. This proposal doesn't include him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970. No such proposals have been made or accepted. We are working on this proposal now and what future proposals and or changes will bring up, have no bearing in this debate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) No one said it did. The only reason I'm mentioning it now is to forestall anyone saying "but we already decided not to include that material". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Does anyone object to this proposal? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Which proposal is on the table, Proposal #4? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 4a, see above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I'm ok with the first paragraph, except for the grammatical error, "only attracted an estimated at 20,000", take out the "at". -- Maelefique (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Done. Mael-Num (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 4a is not a proposal that is completed. It has blah blah at the end. Please place a clean copy in the Proposal's page, and not here so it is clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC) This proposal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the yellow box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. Is that unclear? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, it is unclear. Please put the text you want to be considered in a proposal at User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal3#Proposal_6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I'd suggested it because ti thought it would get quick agreement. Since that hasn't happened I'll go back to trying to get agreement on the Mangalwadi and related material by creating a fresh proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I am not sure what led you to expect quick agreement on the Mangalwadi observations. They are preposterous, and I think they are insulting to the current more thoughtful tone around here. I suggest you write up your proposal without that particular turkey. (Sorry if he is a living person. Or turkey.) Rumiton (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I have had a go myself with Proposal 7 (Now Proposal 6 -- M-N). Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I expected quick agreement because I proposing detaching the Mangalwadi material. But instead of agreeing to that you wanted to keep arguing about Mangalwadi. So let's argue about Magalwadi. What's preposterous about saying that Millennium 73 was the zenith of Rawat's prominence? That's said, more or less, by numerous sources. We just used him because he says it clearly. Is there any dispute over the actual assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Detaching? Or just moving? See my comments later in next section. Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 6 I hope this one is accurate, neutral and concise, and has the inestimable advantage of leaving out the egregious Mangalwadi. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I moved Prop 7 back to Prop 6, and changed the heading on this discussion to reduce confusion. Mael-Num (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for doing that. I had a problem with the Prop 6 font color and then the text disappeared. Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) What is egregious about Mangalwadi? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Mangalwadi uses a wild hyperbole, bordering on a lie, in describing Prem Rawat's early fame (the most popular spiritual leader in the world) just to contrast with his next wild statement (dwindled to almost nothing after the event.) Statements like these have no place in an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I would hope that editors put WP:RS in the context of our content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V, which with all their nuances have to prevail together with common sense and sound editorial judgment. Mangalwadi is fun reading but we should not quote him verbatim for obvious reasons as expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I never added his verbatim material. I simply used him as the source for the indisputable assertion that the Millennium event was the high-point of Rawat prominence. It was other editors (momento) who added the statements that Rumiton complains about, statements that I'm not proposing to include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Also, this version incorrectly attributes the "most significant event" line to Satpal. That line was used widely, and there's even a source for Prem Rawat using it himself. We shouldn't directly attribute it to anyone, since we don't know who coined it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) If we don't know who originated it, perhaps we should say so, or not use it at all? Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) We do know, due to numerous sources, that the event was "billed as" the "most significant..." It is mentioned in almost every discussion of the event. It's an important detail to give context to the significance of the event. Without it the event would appear to be just another festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Originally, and also OR, Rawat described the Hans Jayanti festival as the "most significant and holy event etc " and "this year it would take place in America?.Momento (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I don't follow. Can you express that differently? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Rawat said in the letter inviting people to Millennium something to the effect of, Hans Jayanti is "the most significant and holy event in history" and "this year it will be celebrated in America" but it is OR since I can't find the source.Momento (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC) So, let's just leave it at "was billed as" and omit the attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC) P3.7 I've posted P3.7. It builds on Joss's 3.4, but doens't attribute the undisputred assertion that the festival was th4 high point (zenith) of Rawat's prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Unless someone has strong objections substantiated with solid arguments this appears to be ready. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Strong objections? Have you read what you wrote? The whole thing is as clumsy as it could get and the third sentence doesn't even make sense. But more importantly the assertion that Millenium was some kind of zenith is disputed by the figures released by TPRF. 365,237 people received the Knowledge in 67 countries since 2002. Go figure. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC) The third sentence is "The failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed many followers." How does that not make sense? As for the festival being the zenith of Rawat's prominence as a guru, he had six million followers then, and he's not a guru now. If we want to get into his later prominence as an inspirational speaker, then the foundaiton statistic may be relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) No, Will, the third sentence is Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (Bal Bhagwan Ji) and activist Rennie Davis, the main organizers, predicted attendance of 100,000 or more but the event only attracted an estimated at 20,000 and left the group heavily in debt. Read this carefully too. It does not make sense. And TPRF info shows he is still doing what he always did, whether called a guru or not -- teaching people the Knowledge his father taught him. He was always in inspirational speaker, too. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC) How can you justify using only a section of Mangalwadi's quote and not the zenith to which Rawat had climbed. It must be in as well, otherwise is just OR.Momento (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not aware of a single complete quote in any citation of a writer - all of the quotes in these articles are excerpts in one way or another. This paragraph is about the Millennium, not about the subject's career in general. I think that including Magalwadi's assertions about the subjects overall rise and fall are appropriate, and I think we should create a paragraph in this section to include that info. But this paragraph is just about the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Since Mangalwadi is voicing an opinion not a fact, it is necessary to explain the context on which M based his opinion. And he does supply the context with his version of zenith and it should be included. Later on we can discuss that, firstly when Rawat was replaced as head of DLM, that following was no longer included as his and he stopped being a "guru" in 1983.Momento (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Context is missing here, e.g. the date in which Mangalwadi made this comment. As for Will's OR about "inspirational speaker" that is exactly that. The same Techniques of Knowledge that he taught when he was called a "guru" are exactly the same now, so this OR distinction is not relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Is Rawat stilla guru? Is being a guru the same as being an inspiratoinal speaker? I'd say "no" to both questions. If the answers are yes we need to make major changes to the Rawat article or the Guru article. As for the date, I have no objection to adding that to address Jossi's concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I do not follow your rationale. He has been speaking and teaching the same, when he was 8 years old, as he is now, regardless of what he was/is called. As for Mangalwadi "zenith" thing, it has to be attributed, if kept in that format/wording. "was described" without saying who is WP:WEASEL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The source says that the festival was the zenith of Rawat's prominence as a guru. Rawat is no longer a guru, and no longer prominent. Aside from press releases, the only media coverage in the last decade in the U.S. was in a university newspaper. (There's been coverage in the U.K., but for some reason there's no mention of that coverage in the article). So there's really no question that 1973, and the Millennium festival in particular, as the high point of Rawat's prominence. And Mangalwadi isn't the only one who says that. For example, Price 1979 says, "Nineteen seventy-three was the peak year for the mission's activities both in Britain and the United States... Marty 1984: The 'Millennium 73' festival, a test of the guru's popularity, was a failure. Olson 2007: This left the organization deeply in debt, and motivated it to retrench and reorganize. . Do we have any source that puts the high point of Rawat's prominence at some other date? If not then the correct attribution would be to say something like, As of 2007, several scholars and journalists have said that Rawat and his movement reached their greatest prominence in 1973. As for teaching the same thing, at least one source disagrees: Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings ... (Hunt 2003). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Let's just let Mangalwadi speak for himself. The zenith was more popular than any living spiritual figure.Momento (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC) We've alreay been over that and other editors object to that material. Let's work towards consensus here, rather than perpetuating fights. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think will be able to go forward without Mangalwadi's definition of zenith included. Without it, his quote suggests that the 20,000 attendance at Millennium was the high point of his popularity; when he is really saying the most popular spiritual teacher of all.Momento (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) If you can get all the other editors to agree to including all of what Mangalwadi said, then I won't object. But in the recent past there has been opposition to including that info. Do you dispute that the festival marked zenith of the subject's prominence as a guru? If it wasn't then when was it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC) That means that inserting any Mangalwadi lacks consensus.Momento (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Mangalwadi is a reliable source. However we can make the same assertion with other sources. See above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Reliable sources still need to be selectively chosen. Mangalwadi disqualifies himself by making an absurd statement (most popular spiritual leader in the world.) We can't jump over this and choose to include what he said in his next breath. He was clearly having a bad day. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) No doubt 1973 was the peak year for the Mission but that's not Rawat. And the Millennium festival was no doubt a failure on many levels but again that's am organizational failure not Rawat's. The key thing is that after Rawat split from his mother he downsized DLM and got married. The marriage rift meant that India DLM's 5 million followers were no longer counted as Rawat's. And Rawat stopped giving interviews and dropped from sight. So his "popularity" which was "more popular than anyone" couldn't go any higher and reduced as he stepped back from public events.Momento (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Exactly. 1973 was the high point in prominence for Rawat because after that he dropped from sight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) No 1973 was the high point of prominence for US DLM. Rawat's high point of popular "popularity" was probably getting married in 1974. And in terms of followers, he still had India. The marriage gained more newspaper inches than Millennium which was only notable in the U.S. So the correct understanding would be something like "In 1974 Rawat married and began dismantling DLM and reduced his public exposure by avoiding the media."Momento (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Between 10,000 and 25,000 people attended the festival, which was covered by a number of notable journalists. The wedding was attended by a dozen or so people and only reported by the wire services. What's your source for the wedding getting more column inches than the Millennium festival? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Are we now researchers measuring column inches? The issue is not notoriety, but rather prominence. In any case, as these are value judgments, any such opinions have to be attributed≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The point I was getting at is that in Mangalwadi's opinion, the Rawat was the most popular spiritual leader in the world at the time of Millennium but there isn't a suggestion that his decline in popularity had anything to do with Millennium. So the Millennium section should include "he qwas most popular spiritual leader in the world at Millennium". Any other thoughts of Mangalwadi about Rawat's popularity or lack of should go in a later section. PS. I've just become aware that Mangalwadi is a prominent evangelical christian. It look to me that his opinions, like all the other Christian scholars - Schnabel, Derks, Van der Lans, Hummel, Kranenborg, Wim Haan - belong in their own section.Momento (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think that Schnabel was an Evangelical Protestant or Christian, but there is some merit in considering grouping these that are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC) You're correct about Schnabel, Jossi. Using all these sources without a clear explanation of where they're coming from is too biased. I'm still wanting to create an "Opposition and Criticism" section that will incorporate the opinions of writers like the above who are active members of different religion.Momento (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Criticism by actively involved Christians in the 70s does seem to have an identifiable flavour. Yes, now that article length does not seem to be a consideration, I think a separate church response section would be appropriate. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC) That's a good point Rumiton re Church. It is not just that these scholars are Christian, most of them are agents of the Church. Bit like choosing Basque separatists to be the majority of sources for an article on Spain.Momento (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Status of this proposal What is holding us back with this proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) If there are no further objections I propose we post P3.7. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC) That prop. is missing attribution for the last sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I've re-written the line and added attribtion. It now reads: "The festival was later described by various writers as the high point of the movement or the guru in the U.S.[60][61]" Is that sufficient? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC) We've given 6 lines to Rawat and the customs incident and barely 4 to Millennium. I've expanded it as prop 8.Momento (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) P3.8 Momento, the version you just posted is virtually identical to the material that's already in the article. The reason we're trying to give less space to the festival in this article is that we cover it at great length in the DLM article. You've mentioned your concerns about the legnth of the artile again and again, so we should take opportunities to trim redundant material wherever we can. Nothing you've added back to the proposal isn't already in the DLM article. Let me ask you, do you endorse the idea of having a shorter veriosn here or are you going to keep insisting on retaining the version you wrote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I find it amusing (concerning?) that any edit that includes material that is somewhat critical of the mother and elder brother, are always the edits challenged by some editors, while material that is critical of PR is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This article is about PR, not PR's mother and brother. We include critical material about them in the DLM article, which covers the Millennium festival in detail. This article is just about Prem Rawat, aso we should keep the focus on him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Comments about his family are relevant to the extent that they were operating in support of his aims. Their reportedly poor performance in their roles is therefore notable. [personal attack redacted]More is better now. See Proposal 9. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Please retract that personal attack. It is uncalled for. I am making a good faith effort to improve this article. If you persist in making remarks like that I will ask for sanctions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions re this article. You have changed your interpretations of Wikipedia's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest. On the other hand, if you really do want to trim these articles I am all in favor of it. Start with the house and the fire brigade. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) You may see things any way you like, but when you post comments on Wikipedia they must be civil. WP:CIVIL. Civility is a requirement, not an option. I see that despite my request you have not withdrawn your remark, so I've refactored it. If you make uncivil comments about editors again I will ask for sanctions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) You should ask an uninvolved admin to review these comments instead of refactoring them yourself. Fascinating how quick you react to refactoring material, when it is you that is the target of criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I was not quick. I asked the maker of the comment to remove it and he did not. Refactoring uncivil remarks is something that any editor can do. Jossi has removed plenty of remarks from these talk pages, so it's inappropriate for him to condem refactoring by others. Condemning incivility would be helpful, but I guess that's too much to expect given the circumstances. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC) That was not that "uncivil", IMO. Show me any material that I have refractored from talk in the last year, please. In the recent past I have archived material, but not deleted comments outright. I can remind you of your unwillingness to refactor some of the most obnoxious and repugnant comments that others made, which you witness and all you did was to place a warning in their talk page. So before you try to hold me accountable, hold yourself accountable first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Jossi, I've seen you delete material from talk pages within the last year. If you ha ve forgotten or wish to deny it then that's your business. Civility is a requirement on this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Civility has aspects. We are asked to be civil to the living subjects of biographies too, as they "can be hurt by what we write." This seems to be a point you are determined not to understand. Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Be that as it may, please do not make negative personal remarks about other editors or assume bad faith on their part. You've been warned before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) P3.9 I think Prop 9 is the best so far and its length is commensurate with its importance.Momento (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) It seems to say everything needed. Comments from others? Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Is Thomas Pilarzyk classed as a sociologist? Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I'm happy with Prop 9. Any objections?Momento (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) It needs a source for ""a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", but otherwise I can live with it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) How is this an improvement over what's in the article already? I don't see any significant difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Me neither. Also, I can't see that there is much wrong with the version we have. Jayen466 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) The point of the original proposal was to shorten the material, since it is covered in great detail in the DLM article. All this article needs is a summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Sure, summarizing is OK. Removing material and keeping other material arbitrarily is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Nothing was removed "arbitrarily". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 4

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal 1 I've posted a draft to replace the current intro. Like any article, the lede of a bio should establish the notability of the subject. The rest of the intro should then cover the main points of the subject's life. The conclusion can offer an evaluation. The current intro does not even mention the subject's main "claim to fame": his leadership of the DLM. At the same time it has too many details. For example, while it's verifiable that the followers in the West in the early 1970s were mostly hippies that's not a detail that needs to be in this intro. I've omitted the sources for ease of editing, but I don't think there are any assertions that are unciteable. I'm open to fleshing it out a bit more, but I'd urge editors to keep it short and on point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I like the idea of a tight lead, but not at the expense of missing important information. In addition, the proposal contains several factually inaccurate statements. I look forward to other proposals from other editors, I may try my hand at it as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Also, omitting the sources is not a good idea, as the lead is likely to be a highly contested debate, and we need these to back up the text per WP:LEAD, [it] should be carefully sourced as appropriate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I would like to write my proposal based on some of your text, but I will wait until sources are added before I do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) The sources are omitted for ease of writing and can be added later. What inaccuracies are there? What material should be added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I'm not happy with the assertion that Rawat's teachings "became more universal", which was carried over from the previous version. That appears to be a value judgment and it isn't in the source. Can anyone suggest a better formulation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC) It is OR.... we could say "More Westernized" or "Lost many of their emphasis on Indian Culture"... something along those lines. Hohohahaha (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC) At first sight, I like the proposal. Tight and neutral. Couldn't see any obvious factual errors (which does not necessarily mean there aren't any, just that I didn't spot them). One, perhaps; according to Melton, he must have had 250,000+ followers in the US, so we could say "hundreds of thousands" rather than "tens of thousands". (Melton says that at the end of the seventies, 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission, which left 50,000+ in the US and 1,000,000+ worldwide.) But then I note Melton's figures don't stack up with the other figures we have in the article. Perhaps he just got it wrong. --Jayen466 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I don't recall any one say that the DLM more than 100,000 followers in the West. IIRC, the highest figure I've seen is something like 70,000. I think Melton may have meant that the following was reduced 80% from 50,000, down to a presumed 10,000. But since reliable sources give numbers all over the map it seems safest for the intro to stay vague. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) The factual inaccuracies are (a) who become prominent as the leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) and the Elan Vital. His prominence was related to his age (he was 13 when he arrived to the West), and that relevant information is missing. Also, he did not played/plays a "leadership" role post DLM. Elan Vital is just a small organization that organizes events he speaks at. (b) Internal conflicts and negative publicity led to a reorganization of the DLM. that seems to be OR; (c) He did not create[d] the Elan Vital as a replacement for the DLM; our sources say that he disbanded the DLM, closed the ashrams, and relinquished control of the organization. (d) He did not dropped titles such as "Lord of the Universe" ; he never called himself that. What he did is to refer to himself as Maharaji, rather than Guru Maharaj Ji, as per our sources, as well as dropping the religious trappings imported from India. (e) was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master"), which source would you use for that statement? Also, who proclaimed that is missing. Also missing is that fact that he founded in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation, which carries his name. So, as I said above, once you add sources to your proposal, I will give it a try and use it for the basis for mine. If you have no intention to do so soon, please let me know and I will start from scratch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) A) Every early mention of the subject mentions the Divine Light Mission. It was in his role as guru of that group that he became prominent. I don't recall seeing anyone say that he became prominent simply because he was 13, though his youth and other personal aspects were almost always noted. "Pudgy" and "boy guru" are epithets that frequently appear. However I think the intro is better off without that info. We can include it in the body of the article though. I disagree that the Elan Vital isn't important enough for the intro. IIRC, Rawat is listed as the spiritual head of both the DLM and EV (at least in the U.S. B) There were internal conflicts and there was negative publicity. Following those there was retrenchment and reorganization. We can unpack those more, and mention the 80% loss in following. I'm pretty sure we've got sources that connect the internal conflicts with the split between Indian and Western branches. C) "Relinquished control of the organization"? I don't recall reading that. If he didn't disband the DLM then who did? D) The "Lord of the Universe" is a title often used to refer to Rawat by followers in that era, so it'd help readers to include it. His organization called him that. We could say instead that "he stopped having people call him..." We can also say that he dropped claims of divinity. E) Most accounts don't say exactly who recognized him as Perfect Master. However it'd be correct to say it was done by his followers. F) The TPRF isn't that notable. He didn't establish it himself and he doesn't sit on the board. It's already mentioned in the article but I don't think it's important enough for the intro. I'll prepare a second draft to address some of these issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Also, sumptuous needs to be replaced. What exact words do the sources use? Hohohahaha (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC) That phrase was in the previous version. The sources for it say: Earlier this month, the guru's mother issued a statement in New Delhi saying she had disowned her son because of his pursuit of "a despicable, nonspiritual way of life." [...] Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary. Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. I'd be happy to change "sumptuous" to "opulent, materialistic" to better reflect the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (PS: There are several sources that use the word "opulent". It appears to be a common description.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC) @Will Beback. I read your comments and disagree with them in princple. As you seem not to want to add sources to your proposal, I will start a new proposal that would attempt to take the best from all other previous versions. After all, these were in the article in one way or another. Also, I would remind editors that a lead needs to summarize the article, and not, as it seems from the arguments made, create an introduction that does not reflect the contents of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) I'm not opposed to adding sources, it's just that they are very cumbersome to work with while drafting. If anyone has a question about sources we can answer them here for the time being. I've posted a new draft that addresses many of your concerns posted above. Of course, everyone is welcome to post other proposals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Regarding Jossi's point E: Guru Maharaj Ji taught very similar ideas and practices to his Western followers. He was Satguru, or "Perfect Master;" only his power could initiate one into Knowledge, which alone among spiritual methods could reveal God. DuPertuis 1986, p. 116 Among the most common titles given to the leader of the Divine Light Mission are those of guru, satguru, and Perfect Master. Saliba 1980, p.71 Guru Maharaj Ji himself talks about a succession of perfect masters preceding and following him.13 Since there can be only one Perfect Master living at one particular time, it follows that Maharaj Ji is the satguru of our times. Saliba 1980, p.73 He admits bluntly he is the Perfect Master, that most supreme energy, which can refer to nothing else but to God. Saliba 1980, p.75 Guru Maharaj Ji became the Perfect Master when he was eight years old...He became Guru when liis father died. Waterloo Daily Courier, Waterloo, Iowa July 21, 1972 He is termed a "perfect Master — one who teaches perfect truth — a title inherited at the age of eight from his late father who had founded the movement in 1960 in India. GEORGE W. CORNELL AP Religion Writer Melton and Edwards make the point that, in some respects at least, Rawat assumed for himself the title of Perfect Master: Rawat...who was but eight when he was recognized as the new "Perfect Master" and assumed the title Maharaj Ji...He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father's funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered,"Dear Children of God, why are you weeping? Haven't you learned the lesson that your Master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharah Ji is here, amongst you now. Recognize Him, obey Him, worship Him." Melton 1992 p.218 ...at age nine he gave himself the title of Perfect Master at his father's funeral. He was two years later recognized as the new "Perfect master", an embodiment of God on earth and therefore worthy of veneration. He assumed the title of Maharaj Ji. Edwards 2001, p. 278 So maybe instead of saying that he "was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master")", we should say, something more like "he assumed the role of "satguru" ("Perfect Master"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Here are two more sources along the same lines: Following his father's death, Maharaji announced himself as the new guru... Chryssides 2001, p. 210 When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself the new master and started ihs own teaching. Hunt, 2003, p.115 So maybe attributing the recognition to him would be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Ready? It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I object.Momento (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Could you state why you object please, and add an alternate proposal? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Is it Proposal 1 you want to add? Bad idea. It says "Internal conflicts and negative publicity led to a reorganization of the DLM." Who says so? and "In the late 1970s and early '80s he closed the ashrams, dropped titles such as "Lord of the Universe" and "Guru"." Very wrong, he never picked up the Lord title in the first place, he could not drop it. I support Proposal 6. It is short and to the point and says what needs to be said. We are surely not writing a book here. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) What's the difference betwen Prop4 and Prop6? They appear to be identical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) There are several grammatical and word changes. I think 6 is superior to 4.Momento (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I see no discussion of the benefits of Prop. 4/6 over Prop. 5. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Prop.5 I've posted User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4#Proposal 5, which builds on Prop.2, incorporates Prop.3, and adds sources. Comments? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Not good either. How do we know that tens of thousand of people called him Lord of the Universe? Bad writing and bad encyclopedia making. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Also I see "...with Rawat retaining control of the DLM in the West, which lost most of its members." Clearly implying that his taking over control was the reason for the loss of members. No good at all. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Not good, Will. Not good. As I said previously, the lead will be probably the most contentious of all proposals. I would suggest to complete the other areas of discussion and leaving this discussion to be the last project in the mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) If editors have specific complaints they can be addressed. There's no reason so leave a lousy intro, which we have now, up for months while we negotiate over details elsewhere. I've made two edits to address Rumitons concerns. See [27]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jossi. The lead should be left until the article is stable.Momento (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC) If editors don't want to participate in editing this article then that's their right. But I don't see any good reason for saying that certain parts are off-limits for the forseeable future. This article has never been stable, and saying that some edits should wait until it's stable is another way of saying they should never be made. There is a proposal, Prop.5, being proposed. Specific objections that can be addressed are welcome. Assertions that some edits should wait are not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) According to WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic". Since the article is in flux, it makes sense to wait until the article is finished before attempting the lead. In addition, since the proposals we are discussing were randomly chosen, there is already a great deal of the article that are "off-limits" to editing.Momento (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The article is no more in flux now than it has ever been. Again, if you don't want to participate then you're welcome to watch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil. Making suggestions as to how to proceed is part of the discussion process and consensus. That two involved editors have a different opinion to yours shouldn't be dismissed as a failure to participate.Momento (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I haven't said anything uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Your repeated characterization of my opinion, that the lead proposal should wait, as that I "don't want to participate in editing this article" and if I "don't want to participate then you're welcome to watch" is a fabrication of my position and "personally-targeted, belligerent behavior".Momento (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) My apologies if you were offended. Now let's get back to improving the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I might further elaborate prop.3, which I'd base on prop.5. The issues I'd try to solve are these (non-limitative, just the the ones that immediately drew my attention): "[In the late 1970s and early '80s Rawat] ... disbanded the DLM." - "disbanding" DLM is at least factually incorrect, technically it was renamed (to Elan Vital), and then technically, at the time there was still a DLM in India, where nothing was "disbanded" by Rawat (how could *Rawat* have disbanded Indian DLM?). Western DLM and Elan Vital related ashrams were probably "disbanded", although also there reformation into Elan Vital centres would probably be more correct. As far as I understand primarily the *community life* aspect of the Mission-related houses was disbanded. For all the other aspects "disbanding" seems an overstatement to me (although there are of course sources - notably Geaves 2006 - that make that overstatement). I'm not saying all this needs to be elaborated in the lead section, but a summary "... disbanded the DLM" is too far off the mark as a lead section summary imho. I'd try to find a phrasing that gives the facts, without adding interpretation that is only shared by a limited part of the sources. "In June 1971, he left India for the West. There he became the subject of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of devotees. Followers called him the "Lord of the Universe". He made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching worldwide." - something about the time sequence: as far as I understand Rawat "began touring and teaching worldwide" from June 1971, why is it stated that he only *began* touring & teaching worldwide after he had made his home in the U.S.? (or said otherwise: as it is written currently it seems to suggest that between June 1971, when Rawat went to the UK, and a few weeks later, when he made his home in the U.S., he would have been doing something else than touring & teaching) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Most of this seems to me unnecessary detail for the lead, though I agree nothing misleading should be there. Maybe when we get to it in the body of the article it should be stated that he "greatly reduced the size of the western DLM, then changed its name to Elan Vital." I think that agrees with most sources. The "touring and teaching" stuff can be easily sorted out. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not aware of any source that says Rawat "greatly reduced the size of he Wester DLM". That implies it was intentional. What would be a source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) It certainly was intentional. I will leave it to others to source that. Rumiton (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal4#Proposal_7 Apologies Steve - I lost the background colour. I've attempted to deal with the chronology issues which I agree with Francis are a significant problem. The residual footnote numbering is from Proposal 5, I think all those should cover the material but I've concentrated on getting an historically consistent wording, so some of the references may be out of line. I've rejected the Proposal 3. construction of "associated with organizations" which has too many possible interpretations to be helpful. I disagree with those who want to leave the lede in abeyance until some notional time in the future, the lede should stand as an identification of what is important in the article and even at the level of a work in progress it should be possible to achieve some consensus on what is important enough to be in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Maybe, Nik, but I doubt it. As the article progresses, the nature of the new material will be dictated by what is already there. That's in the nature of most writing, let alone a group effort like this. You don't really know how the thing will end up until you get there. I think Proposal 6 works as a skeletal structure. If we accept that, we can agree to modify it if later edits make that desirable. Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC) We can rewrite the intro again later as needed. Prop 6 has many problems. If you'd like to start a discussion on its advantages you're welcome to do so. As for prop 7, it looks OK to me. I can fix the references if that's agreeable to Nik. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC) A minor quibble: "Organisations which have considered Rawat as variously their leader or inspiration include Divine Light Mission ..." seems unnecessarily wordy. How about "Rawat's organisations have included Divine Light Mission..."? They're undoubtedly his organisations, though the exact relationship is often vague or indirect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Will, yes, please do feel free to fix the references and I'm entirely happy with the amended construction you suggest. Do you want to go ahead and create a new Prop. with that amendment and fixed refs ? Or is there a better way forward ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 7 contains phrases like, "Rawat attracted tens of thousands of devotees who called him the "Lord of the Universe",and "although he sought to take a more active role in guiding the by then international Divine Light Mission movement,[62] the movement was split by conflicts within the Rawat family." And this "looks OK to you"? I can't believe you are not joking. This is a million miles from neutrality, and you are not going to get a consensus on it. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop. 5 used slightly different language, which was intended to adress your concerns. There he became the subject of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of devotees. Followers called him the "Lord of the Universe".[61] He made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching worldwide. When he turned 16 in 1974, Rawat married and took a more active role in guiding the movement.[62] Family conflicts split the movement with Rawat retaining control of the DLM in the West. The DLM lost most of its members after the mid-1970s.[63] Would using that text instead be sufficient? If not, what exact changes do you want? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) It's getting better, but is still not right. "An Indian-American" seems like a racial characterisation to me. The article states that he was born in India and now lives in the US. This is neutral and OK. I don't have time tonight for any more. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, Rumiton, I think Indian American is neutral. It's along the lines of "Asian American," "Native American," "Polish American," etc. It's how people are described (and describe themselves) after they become citizens of the U.S. having been born elsewhere. There's no slant of any kind by using the term. The hyphen between Indian and American isn't necessary, however. Give it some thought.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I may be too sensitive. In Australia we would not say Indian-Australian, it would be insulting. We are all Australians, which is a multi culture. We may be too sensitive. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) This proposal has so many problems that it is simply not worthy of addressing. It is a mishmash that does not represent a summary of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Rawat is an Indian American. That's how we'd refer to any similarly bornand emigrated individual. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) No, he is not. He was born in India and naturalized as a US citizen. Indian American's are those of Indian ancestry, usually referring to second generations of Indian nationals. Not a big deal, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC) "Indian Americans are Americans who are of Indian ancestry. " He is an American of Indian ancestry. It is standard in WP bios to list the nationality/ethnicity of subjects in the first line. It's also standard to describe their chief claim to notability. The current intro does neither and that's why it need to be changed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) What is the source for "critics have referred to [...] an opulent, materialistic lifestyle"? If that is the mother, you cannot say "critics", you have to attribute it to her. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 0 So far, I see no proposals that improve on Proposal #0, which is the most neutral and factually accurate than all new attempts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I think you've made your opinion on this point clear. However other editors disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 8 Not perfect, but a good neutral summary of an encyclopedic article on the subject. It needs polishing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC) It's closer than P6, but it has substantial problems and isn't neutral A) "His "Knowledge" consists of techniques described as capable to obtain stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual. Source? Why do we say this Knowledge is "his"? Wouldn't we just say "His teachings include techniques that he says bring stillness, peace, and contentment?" B) In 1966 at the age of eight, after his father death, Rawat succeeded him as the spiritual head of the movement India, when he was proclaimed "satguru" ("Perfect Master") by his followers. That appears clumsier than In 1966 at the age of eight, Rawat succeeded his father as spiritual head of the DLM in India, when he was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master"). Why the change? C) ...where he became the subject of substantial media attention due to his youth and the exuberant claims of his followers. Source? D) ...his teachings became more universal... Source? E) In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation to contribute to global humanitarian efforts and to promote his message, which is now available world-wide via print, TV, cable and satellite. Too much attention to a very minor and barely notable vanity foundation. OTOH, the DLM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, as it's the organization that brought Rawat to fame. F) why sumptuous unstead of opulent, materialistic? Overall, I don't see this as an improvement over P7. It contains too many non-neutral assertions and poor emphasis. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) A- OK with your wording B- Because it is accurate as per sources. He was proclaimed satguru by his followers. C- Do you dispute this? It is factually accurate: he was 13 years of age(!) when he arrived to the West. There are multiple sources that attest to this D- I will change that. My proposal does not have that text. (?) E- A foundation that he founded lending his name is not significant? Of course it is. Your opinion of being a "vanity" foundation, is your opinion alone. F- Why "opulent, materialistic"? "Sumptuous" is as good as the other adjectives. Per Merriam-Webster: extremely costly, rich, luxurious, or magnificent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also note that the source attributed to "critics" for opulent, materialistic is Mata Ji, after the family rift, a massive WP:REDFLAG. This, from a person that before the rift described her son as divine... Do you have other sources from "critics" that assert that opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) << Any and all sources that describe the subject from a biographical point of view (which in case anybody has forgotten is the subject of this article) refer to the PR's age when arriving to the West as one of the most notable aspects of this person's life. Hunt: The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's Barret: "The Guru Maharaj Ji was only 13 when he sprang to prominence as leader of the Divine Light Mission Melton: The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission. Messer: Guru Maharaj Ji is most easily described as a boy guru, successor to his father's disciples, who was persuaded to bring his movement to the West by a handful of Western devotees who had discovered him in India. Since August 9, 1971, more than eighty thousand Americans have become his devotees. East and West, the movement itself is called the Divine Light Mission. I can add more if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The issue is not his age, the issue here is saying that his fame was due to his age. None of these sources say that he "he became the subject of substantial media attention due to his youth". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What is the source for "he became the subject of substantial media attention"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) As for "sumptuous" that was discussed earlier on this page and another editor specifically asked us to find something better. Mata Ji's comments are undoubtedly criticisms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The text in your proposal speak of "critics", when it is actually the mother, not "critics". Such criticism needs to be attributed, and if found to be just the mother, I will remove from the lead per WP:REDFLAG. If there are any other "critics" that talk about an "opulent, materialistic" lifestyle, please provide sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) As for point B, what is your source? We have several sources that say he proclaimed himself guru. We already discussed this above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) There are plenty of sources that say otherwise. We will need to find wording that accommodates the competing viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) As for the organizations, there's no question that the DLM (which had over six million members) is more important to the notabilty of the subeject that the TPRF (which has no members and only gets the publicity that it pays for). If you have a conflict of interstest over this organization I don't think you should be promoting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I would ask you for the second time to keep your opinions to yourself which have no bearings in this discussion. You want to hold the opinion that TPRF is a "vanity" foundation, that "pays for publicity", please keep it to yourself! The Foundation is a pubic charity and there are plenty of verifiable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think one thing we can all agree on is that "he arrived to the West as a boy guru" is awful. Let's change it to "he arrived to the West as a 13 year old with millions of followers". Being a 13 year old is normal, being a 13 year old with millions of followers is something to write about. "Sumptuous" is archaic, the usual expression is a "materialistic lifestyle".Momento (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) He arrived as a boy guru and he was referred as such. I see no problem with this, although as said before the text needs polishing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The millions of followers didn't accompany him to the West. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) That's right. But nor was he born or became a guru in the west. If he'd had ten followers no one would have cared but he was a phenomena.Momento (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'd suggest finding a source that backs up what you are saying, it would probably help your viewpoint. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) [E/C] I think P8 isn't worth spending a lot of time fixing. It's got so many problems, some of which are outlined above. I again ask for improvements to P5, which has a better basis and avoids making POV claims or using language like "boy guru". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Nah. P5, as expressed above has no chance whatsoever as it stands. I will continue working on this version and accommodate the feedback given. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Objections to P5 have been addressed as they've been raised. Let's keep working on it. Despite your claim, your P9 does not accomodate the feedback you've received. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I have accommodated all your requests that were feasible, and challenged others, which you have not responded to ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal #9 This proposal, based on Proposal #8 includes fixes requests made above by several editors. I have withdrawn proposal #8 and will continue working on the basis of this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I can't see the differences without closely examining the sections. Not being lazy, but could someone point them out? I noticed the change from sumptuous to materialistic, were there others? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) It appears to repeat text that I complained about above. How is this progress? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) It has accommodated most, if not all of your requests. If there is anything else that you don't like, please say so with a substantive argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Can you explain how it accomodates the requests? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Do we need to put all a Rawat's names in the lead? It doesn't read well and can be handled in the text, anyone searching with those names will be redirected anyway. And a following in "many countries" seems a bit vague, with materials available in more the 80 countries, it is either "world wide" or "in more than 80 countries". Momento (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Names are usually placed in th lead, Momento. As per "many countries" or 80 countries, I have no particular preference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Having said that, there is no specific policy to list all names of a person in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article". Having all those names reads very badly and aren't necessary. Imagine G.W.Bush was (also called Mr. President, Commander in Chief, G.W., 43, Dubya)? Balyogeshwar (India only) and Sant Ji (35 years old) should be handled in the text. Anyone searching using those names get re-directed anyway. Likewise with the organizations, they're not important enough for the lead. If we want this lead to be "clear and accessible", we need to edit it with that as the criteria.Momento (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Alternate names belong in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Also this is the Indian Wikipedia too. Far more people speak English in India than in Australia and the U.K. combined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Alternate names may belong in the intro but Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji are neither alternates nor names. They are given titles that haven't been used in years. Maharaji and formerly Guru Maharaj Ji are also titles but Rawat has chosen to use them as pseudonyms, one current and one former, which should appear after his legal name.Momento (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Those are the names and titles that he's been called. It doesn't matter when they were used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "Sant Ji" and "Bolyogeshwar" were names Prem Rawat was also known as, (a/k/a) in the western countries, including the U.S. Rawat signed letters and DLM published magazines as "Sant Ji Maharaji," even after he was an emancipated minor and married. We've already had this discussion many, many times in the past, please let's not delay the progress here by making believe we haven't discussed it. All the names Rawat's been known as should be included. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Also, did the source say "sumptuous" or "materialistic?" Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC) <<< WP:MOSBIO does not force us to use all nicknames, aliases, honorary titles, etc. in the lead. We can simply list the legal name, followed by the most notable names (Maharaji and Guru Maharaj Ji). All others can go in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Or we can leave out self-given titles entirely and just list his legal name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) That could work. The other names can be introduced in the chronology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Rawat has referred innumerable times to Guru Maharaji and Maharaji, never to Balyogeshwar and not in 30 years to Sant Ji. He still calls himself Maharaji as per his website therefore Maharaji should be included in the lead as his current alternate name and Guru Maharaj Ji as his former.Momento (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Also "Over the years, several organizations have considered Rawat as their leader or inspiration" is not suitable for the lead. One, who cares what these organizations think? And two, they get a minor mention in the article. And " In 1966 at the age of eight, Rawat's father died" is ambiguous. It can read that Rawat's father died "in 1966 at the age of eight". I'm happy to make these changes.Momento (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) And finally, as per Will's reminder that there are more English speakers in India than the UK, the lead is too western. Rawat didn't become "prominent in the 1970s when he arrived in the West as a 13 year-old guru", he became prominent when he became a guru to five million followers in India at the age of 8.Momento (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) That seems to imply his father was eight. And those organizations are the source/context of his notability. Leaving them out of the lede would be like not mentioning Standard Oil in the lede of Rockefeller's bio. Good point about India. I'll work on that in the next draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Seems overwordy, but if all these factors need to be included in the lead (clearly I don't think they do) it needs even more information. We need to be told who his father was, and how he started the Indian DLM and had x million followers, otherwise the significance of his death is unclear. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Rumiton: you can copy/paste this proposal and create a new proposal in which you can present your ideas for these fixes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 10 I have tried to answer Rumiton's concerns and my own. Mainly removing Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji that aren't "alternate names" or pseudonyms. Reducing and tidying the text. Bringing forward his claim to notability to being a guru at 8, including the millions of followers and removing the ambiguity of his father's death. I have removed the organization as per Rockefeller - John Davison Rockefeller's article mentions Standard oil in the lead, JDR II's article mentions SO in the lead only as "the son of JDR the founder of Standard Oil" and JDR III doesn't mention it at all in the lead despite their obvious involvement. DUO, RVK and EV are only briefly mentioned and shouldn't be in the lead.Momento (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Could you please break these into sentences? Adding the sources would also help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) It will need some work still, but it's not horrible. You mention him being 13 twice, I don't think that's necessary in the lead (well, unless he was 13 twice! :) ). I have not found any major article or book on PR that does not reference EV or DLM, and they are a very strong part of what helped make him a notable figure. I think those need to be in the lead. The sentence about TPRW sounds a whole lot like a press release. -- Maelefique (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Not horrible? I'm flattered. I've removed the redundant 13 and worked in DLM and EV. I was hoping that as this is the lead, we could leave the citeing to the main body. But I've put them back in.Momento (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I don't like Prop. 10. I don't think it's worth working on because it's not an accurate depiction of Prem Rawat's life at all. It removes all mention of his association with DLM/EV (which is a new religious movement) and introduces him as a "speaker" rather than a "guru." Prem Rawat didn't only suceed his father, he also inherited all of the support of DLM-India at the time, then DLM in the U.S. and all of the financial support that included. He didn't operate in a vacuum as a "speaker on peace." While his age got him attention, it wasn't because he's a speaker about peace; (!!) it was becasue he was a boy guru about whom a lot of fantastic claims were made about his divinity. That's what was what caught the attention of scholars and the media. He was called "Guru Maharaj Ji" don't forget. It seems like this effort is going backwards now. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Have a look at Prop 11, Sylvie. It might address some of your concerns. Prop 11 Rumiton, could you please break the text block into sentences? It will make for better reading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Not sure what you mean, Jossi. I count 13 separate sentences in Prop 11. Or did you mean something else? Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, did you mean paragraphs? I agree they are needed. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Paragraphing added. Rumiton (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Looking good.Momento (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I think the research by Galanter and Downton that Knowledge improves the feeling of well being of its practicers will be an important section of the article. And it should be in the lead as per - Rawat's students and independent scholars have credited him with helping people find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and a materialistic lifestyle.[95] I don't see how P4.11 addresses the concerns already raised. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Which concerns? This version, while not perfect, is viable as a neutral summary of the article (as it stands in regards of current content). As for the other proposals, I do not see any one there that comes close to a neutral presentation, besides Proposal #9. Some of these proposals, such as Proposals #2 and #5 contain OR such as "inspirational speaker" assertions and others that are not sourced, amongst other problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC) The concerns expressed on this talk page. For example, the over-emphasis on TPRF and the underemphasis of the DLM, the incomplete list of names, the lack of ethnic/national identitification, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC) What over-emphasis? I see none. The ethnic identification is not a big deal.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) The overemphasis comes from having a TRPF description that's much longer than the DLM/EV mentions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P4.12 I've posted a comproimise version that incorporates material from P4.11 while addressing the concerns expressed above. It's not exactly what I think is best, but I hope that is good enough to meet everyone's needs. If there are any objections please explain them explicity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Unacceptable changes. Prefer 11.Momento (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Please specify which changes are unacceptable. That's the only way we can reach consensus - describing our differences so we can bridge them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) All the changes you made to prop 11 are for the worse. The old titles for Rawat, "Indian-American", "opulent, materialistic" and the structural changes.Momento (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Most of it's the same as P1.11. Let's go over these items one by one.: 1. "Old titles" -it's standard to include names/titles in the lede. That is how we have it in the current version. I don't see any strong argument for deleting them from the intro. 2. "Indian-American" -I'm flexible. Should we say just "Indian", or just "American"? How else would he be described? 3. "Opulent" is a sourced term, made as part of a notable criticism of the subject. What reason is there to delete it? 4. "Structural changes" -That's mysterious. I guess it means moving the list of organizations to the first paragraph. The subject is very closely associated with each of those organizations and his initial prominence was entirely connected to the DLM. On the other hand, the TPRF is not a source of notability for the subject. Let's work through these differences and find a consensus version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) OK. 1. I have a problem with including Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji in the lead. There were affectionate childhood nicknames that have not been used for 30+ years, and putting them in the lead breaches neutrality. I heard today of a murder suspect who was described as having "more than 30 aliases." Listing a bunch of AKAs without explaining the Indian custom of giving children different names at different ages creates a sense of suspicion. Explaining it blows the lead out. Leaving them out solves the problem. 2. Indian-American. Sylvie has convinced me it is a neutral term, though to my Australian ears it doesn't sound so. But it is just unnecessary. We say he was born in India and that he travelled to the US and took out US citizenship. Does that not cover it? 3. Opulent is a word that critics have apparently used. It is negatively loaded and has no place in the neutral voice of Wikipedia, which the lead should consist of. 4. I don't care much about the order, though why on earth would TPRF not be a source of notability for the subject? It is the most Googled return for the name Prem Rawat, and has been for several years. Weird, Will. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC) << Seem to be mainly cosmetic changes, and as such it should be easy to reach a compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Responding to Rumiton's replies: 1. In an archive of academic papers I get 8 hits for Balyogeshwar, 4 hits for Maharaj Ji, and 1 hit for Maharaji. So "Balyogeshwar" is very much used in print to refer to the subject, as recently as 1986. I don't understand how including the subject's names breaches neutrality. The current article does so - does it breach neutrality on that account? Please explain. 2. How would "Indian-American" be a non-neutral term? An Indian American was recently elected governor of Louisiana, and he's constantly referred to as "Indian American". 3. Criticisms aren't neutral but we can use the neutral voice to report them. The sentence in question is describing the most noteworthy criticisms of the subject. That particualr criticism was very notable, coming from the subject's own mother and widely reported. Also, "opulent" was added specifically due to a complaint about the word "sumptuous". 4. I don't know how we'd know how many people Google TPRF, but Wikipedia is not driven by Google hits. The vast majority of academic and popular media about the subject don't mention TPRF at all. Virtually every mention of him is in connection to one of the other organizations, particularly the DLM. As head of the DLM he had 6 million followers. As sponsor (?) of the TPRF he oversees (?) a small budget of charitable giving. We're not even really sure what his role is in TPRF. But it's certainly not the source of his notability, while the DLM clearly is. Weird? That's an odd way to describe these edits. There's nothing weird about them that I see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 1. "As recently as 1986" makes my point. Remember that PR was 28 that year, and those childhood names had long disappeared from use, and almost vanished from academic comment. They might be worth including in a section, but not in the lead. 2. Please read more carefully. My objection was that Indian-American was covered by describing his Indian birthplace and his adoption of US citizenship, not to its possibly being POV. It is just redundant. 3. You are using the term "noteworthy" loosely again. Here you seem to want it to mean something like "fascinatingly derogatory." Loaded words should not appear in the Wiki voice. 3. I am sure you know that the "vast majority" of available sources were writing before the TPRF came into existence, so they could not mention it. The TPRF website describes his role as Founder. It's clear. Stop trying to create those clouds of innuendo. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) You cannot say "critics say he leads an opulent lifestyle" without attributing it to the mother. She was not a "critic" but a mother that was upset with his son's independence. Stating that critics referred to a "materialistic lifestyle" is accurate and neutral. As for the names, I don't see why we could not get to a compromise about what to list on the lead and what to list in the article's body text. As for TPRF, it seems to be the main vehicle for the transmission of his message today, which he founded, and hence encyclopedic. The "small budget" is a specious comment: Boeing gave $100,000 to Myanmar relief effort, as so did TPRF.. The Caterpillar Foundation gave $50,000.[28] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I've restored the earlier formulation to address Jossi's point about "critics". It now reads "criticims have referred to", which doesn't imply that the speakers are critics. Regarding the TPRF, the Elan Vital seems to be the main organization, though Geaves said it was replaced by TPRF. I don't mind giving them equal billing, a P4.12 does. I object to giving it more space, especially if that space is devoted to promotional-sounding material. If any active editor here has a COI related to the TPRF they should say so and should avoid any actions here or in the article that promote it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) "criticisms have referred to" does not make sense gramatically. I do not have COI related to TPRF, and you should know better than to keep pressing for more private/privileged information about editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC) "Criticisms have referred to" does make sense grammatically, if I'm not mistaken. We could say "have included assertions that...", which sounds a little better initially but which is clumsier overall. Thanks for clarifying your relation to TPRF - as with Rawat himself it's not clear who does what there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jossi that "criticisms have referred to" is grammatically incorrect. A criticism is an object, and as such cannot refer to anything by itself. An object requires a subject, and I understand that Rawat is the subject of the criticism. If you mean to refer to the source of the criticism and not the subject, then you must use 'critics'. Given the context of the sentence used, I suggest "Rawat's proponents have credited him with helping them find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teaching". In this context, 'critics' is in the same voice as 'proponents' as a counterpoint. That seems fair. There are multiple sources of criticism, so 'critics' is correct. Again I must disagree with Rumiton's objection to the use of opulent, sumptuous, or similar words to describe Rawat's lifestyle. As described recently on the main article discussion page, it is self-evident, and notable. 'Materialistic' does not go far enough. You or I can be be materialistic in our day to day life, but we don't have gold plated bathroom accessories on our private jets. I don't buy the 'not encyclopedic' argument either, as this qualifies on the grounds of notability and is not exploitative in this case. 'Opulent' is a very strong word, but this is case of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary evidence is there. I do agree that we need high quality sources and context to tie together the criticism and opulence, as opulence by itself isn't necessarily worthy of criticism. However, this detailed discussion belongs with Proposal 6, not the article lead. Savlonn (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding opulent and sumptuous, I think you may have become a victim of some clever posturing. Gold plating on bathroom facilities is not rare at all, my local plumbing supply house in backwoods Australia features them, describing them as "adding a surprisingly inexpensive sparkle to your most private room" and as never needing polishing. The plating is only a micron or two thick, and the actual amount of gold used is tiny. Here [[29]] is a site where you can order your own. Also "private jet" is misleading. The aircraft are/were used for his travel to address audiences. This is his work, whether some like it or not, it is what he does, not pleasure travel. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC) No wukking furries mate - the gold plating keeps the redbacks sliding off the dunny! I think we are both a bit guilty of attempting original research here. I will stick to referencing the sourced material. Savlonn (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your input. I was trying to avoid calling those who've made criticisms "critics", since that pigeonholes folks who aren't primarily critics (his mother, for instance). It may be too hard to cover the praise and criticism in one sentence with a parallel structure. How about this: Rawat has been praised by followers for helping them find inner peace. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading an opulent, materialistic lifestyle. I agree that "materialistic" and "opulent" aren't redundant. While we may not think that opulence is worth criticism, significant people in Rawat's life (his mother, for instance) have made that criticism. We're just here to summarize significant viewpoints using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Can't we just pull those together and say "Rawat has been praised (or credited) by followers for helping them find inner peace, however has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.? I'm with you on the sources for criticism of opulance, but didn't want to get into the debate here, but in Proposal 6. I'm expecting sources discussing the change from promoting the Ashram culture of the early movement to be used as grounds for criticism of opulence. Savlonn (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Praised by followers is bad. Followers itself is bad enough. Using the two together creates an image of accolytes in ceremonial robes chanting hymns. He has also been praised by a lot of government officials in several countries, and by the United Nations Association, among others. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) That version is fine with me. I'll add it to the proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC) The use of however should be avoided per WP:AVOID ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I laready changed it to "and". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) We're just here to summarize significant viewpoints using the neutral point of view. Yes, but you cannot avoid attributing these comments and providing the necessary context. Otherwise you are asserting an opinion as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC) The context comes in the body of the article. We certainly aren't asserting the criticisms are facts, though it's a fact that they were made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) The NPOV violation of that sentence is so obvious that it hurts. You say that he has been praised by followers but fail to say who are these that criticize them, by simply using the term "critics". Not right.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) We don't use the word "critics". We say he "has been criticized". That's perfectly neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) This is more accurate, and more neutral and avoids the problem of attribution: Rawat's proponents have credited him with helping them find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and a materialistic lifestyle.[111] Per proposal 13. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) That has the problem of labelling anyone who makes a negative comment about the subject as a "critic". If that's mnecessary then we should change "students" to "admirers" to give them equal footing. It also omits "opulent", a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 13 speaks of "proponents", and the source for "opulent", which one is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC) There are a number of sources for comments about the "opulent". For example, "Riches Called Goal Of 'Divine Light'", WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975., "There ore many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji", MALCOLM N. CARTER, Associated Press Writer, Wed., Sept. 26, 1973 GREELEY TRIBUNE . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) There is no such material in the article, and thus to cannot be used in the lead which is is but a summary of the article. And if you use that material in the article at all, it cannot be left unattributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P4 13 I have attempted to integrate wording from Prop 11 and 12, as well as addressing concerns expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) What concerns are addressed? That draft does not address the concern about the excess weight on the TPRF. It omits "opulent", leaving only "materialistic", and so it overlooks a significant viewpoint. It fails to mention the organizations that the subject is connected with until towards the end. We have no source for the "Raj Vidya Kender" or "DUO", the latter apparently a minor offshoot of the DLM. It restores Cagan as a source, which is controversial. etc. Please explain how you think this addresses any of the concerns already raised. If anything this version looks worse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I reduced the material about TPRF. We have sources for DUO and Raj Vidya Kender. Cagan is not used for a contentious claim. What is the source for "opulent"? The placement of the connection to the organizations is in the lead, so I do not see what is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Why do we ned to use Cagan at all? We're just using her to say that the techniques are called "Knowledge" and there are plenty of better sources for that. The TPRF material is barely shorter than before and is much longer than the material on the DLM. If we're going to mention DUO and RVK why not mention the Divine Cleaning Service and all of the other businesses? They all seem minor. I don't see how this version really comes closer to consensus. It seems to go the opposite direction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) And what's our source s for this assertion: In June 1971, age 13, Rawat traveled to Britain and the US, where he became prominent due to his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. The footnote says pp141-145 of Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook, but those are the wrong page numbers and there's nothing like that in the section on the pp217 et seq. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC) DIVINE LIGHT MISSION: The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.' is from the 1986 edition. The 1992 edition is very similar, only that it speaks of his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of the Divine, page 217, chapter opener. As for Cagan, I see no reason not to use that source for a non-contentious claim≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think that it's a correct summary of the material. It's fine to say that young adults were extraordinarily interested in his claims. It isn't correct to say that hie gained prominence due to his claims. This whole bit seems reptetitive, since your draft already discusses his prominence in the lead. As for Cagan, that source is highly disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I would also ask Will Beback to stop making insistent and recurring negative comments about The Prem Rawat Foundation. He can keep his opinion of this charitable organization to himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Stop promoting TPRF and I'll stop discussing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Tit for tat? Is that the new game in town? This is unacceptable, Will. And I am not promoting TPRF. You are welcome to discuss TPRF or any other subject, but you can keep your negative opinions of the subject to yourself.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) It's not retaliation. You're the one who keeps bringing up the topic by promoting TPRF. If it weren't for you, it wouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Both of you, please refrain from personal attacks and/or uncivil comments. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 05:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Other issues aside, opulent is way too loaded for the lead, and opulent, materialistic makes it worse. Materialistic does the job. More detail can be provided in the body of the article. IMO. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Can we please move this debate here [30] instead of swamping the lead section discussion? Having this debate here is exactly what I feared would happen by attempting to create the lead before the sub-sections are completed. I think it would be better if we could agree to leave the lead section to last, as it should be a summary of all the sub-sections. Savlonn (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) We'll probably re-write the lead again. But it has major problems which should be addressed as soon as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P4 14 Have a look. Tried to make it neutral and balanced. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P4.15 I've posted a new draft. It is almost identical to P4.14. The only significant changes are moving the organizations to the first paragraph, trimming the TPRF sentence, and adding the term "luxurious", per the discusion at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat. I think that there are other items that should be included or changed, but we're working towards consensus and I'm willing to accept the imperfections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Close, but still does not work for me, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) In what way does it not work for you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) This does not work: Rawat has been praised for bringing inner peace to his followers and criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and for a luxurious, materialistic lifestyle.[129]. Unattributed opinions for the last portion; use of "followers" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) That's it? Has Rawat brought inner peace to those who haven't learned the techniques of knowledge? We've never had a source for this clause, so maybe we'd better just omit it. I'll add some sources for "luxurious". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I removed the part about the inner peace, but I'd be happy to restore it if we find a source. I added a source talking about the "luxurious lifestyle", many others are also available. I split the sentence into two. I hope that edit addresses Jossi's concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) LOL!!! You have got to be kidding if you think that that edit addresses my concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) What's the problem now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Read my comment above: "Unattributed opinions for the last portion"; use of "followers". And what do you do? remove the "followers" AND the first portion, and not only that, you keep two unattributed opinions instead of the original one. Sourcing the first portion is not difficult. I do not know if you are doing this in purpose, of what, but its becoming exceedingly difficult to assume the good faith of your proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC) As I said, let's find a source for the views of the followers. It's hard to summarize a source we don't have. The other views are so widely held that that the attribution would also be broad. I suppose we could say something like: "Scholars and journalsists written about Rawat's luxurious lifestyle and about the lack of intellectual content in his teachings." Is that what you're looking for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Standby, I am working on a version that present this is a better way, and inline with Savlonn's idea of point/counterpoint for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC) P4.16 A neutral and properly attributed version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC) No, it's not neutral, and it doesn't take previously-expressed concerns into account. For example, it again promotes TPRF excessively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Excessively? Over the years, several organizations have been formed to assist in spreading his message, including the Divine Light Mission (1960), Elan Vital (1983), and in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation with a dual mission of contributing to humanitarian efforts and promoting his message.[133][76] How can that be called "excessively"? As said above, it is neutral, and fully attributed. I wil be off for the weekend, with little access to the interwebs. Would like to hear from others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I see three problems with the last sentence. 1. "Rawat, who does not personally avoid material possessions" is vague. You can’t summarise what he is not notable for; you can only summarise that he is notable for something e.g. being materialistic. The word ‘personally’ is tautological. Finally, you are using the first person for this phrase – thus stating an opinion as fact; something that you claim to strongly object to, whilst use the 3rd person for the rest of the sentence. 2. You changed the tense from “has been” to “was” when referring to descriptions of his lifestyle. “Has been” is correct as it is present tense. The term “was” is past tense and implies that he is no longer described as living a luxurious or materialistic lifestyle. I didn’t see any referenced sources stating that he is no longer described as having a luxurious lifestyle. 3. The Phrase “characterized as materialistic by some religious scholars” is not an accurate summary. He has been characterized as materialistic by much broader reliable sources than just religious scholars. I'm mostly away for the next 2 weeks. Savlonn (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) It's not more neutral. Watered down, but not neutral. TPRF has its own article, so the link is adequate and the description of it should go. DLM also had humanitarian organizations. It's not necessary to explain TPRF. Agree that religious scholars haven't been the only critics of lifestyle. I prefer P15 to P16. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) It's only "watered down" if you think concentrating on criticism is somehow more "truthful." He has been both strongly praised and strongly criticised, and the lead should refer to both in a neutral way. Can we have some more version blanks please? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Not at all. I listed the reasons I don't like it. DLM also had "humanitarian" organizations operating as d/b/a's so why not list all of those, too? Also, please don't try to intuit what I think. State what you think only, pls. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC) @Savlonn: Rawat, who does not personally avoid material possessions is sourced to a scholar, per the cite provided\ a) You haven't resolved my issue: It doesn't say "Scholar(s) have claimed...." it is still in stating this opinion in the first voice as a fact, whilst the rest of the sentence is in the third voice, referencing an opinion. b) You have selected a very mild/passive assessment. This is not representative of the overall sourced material provided.Savlonn (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Changed back to "has been" The "materialistic" characterization is referenced to the religious scholar cited. If and when other sources are added to the article on this subject, it can be further tweaked Your justification for this point goes to the very heart of this debate, so let's be crystal clear. My understanding of your above comment is that you are only summarizing the existing published article, based on existing sources in the existing article, and are excluding all sources placed on the sandbox article discussion page. You are also ignoring all sub-sections that have not been completed i.e. Section 6. What is the purpose of this? Surely the new lead section should be a reflection of the agreed new sub-sections, not the existing article? This is why I don't think completing the lead now serves any purpose. Savlonn (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC) @Sylviecyn How is this is watered down? Counterpoints for NPOV, yes. But that is not watering down. Also note that "I don't like it" is not an argument that can be discussed TPRF has a dual purpose and it is noteworthy, as being a current organization that carries his name. Nevertheless, in the spirit of moving forward I have deleted the additional info. Readers can always follow the wikilink for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC) @John Brauns I do not have the time to debate each proposal, but I would just like to repeat that the lede, and the article, should highlight the only reason for Rawat's notability, and that is that he promised to reveal the Knowledge of God, and that his followers worshipped him as God. Some versions of the lede do include that his followers refered to him as 'Lord of the Universe', but none appear to include that he claimed to reveal 'Knowledge of God'. I'm sure the editors who have researched the available sources can find appropriate quotes and wording, but excluding these two facts is like writing an article on John Lennon and not mentioning he was part of the Beatles. --John Brauns (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I am totally shocked at reading this. Nothing that I've read on this subject has even hinted the 'Knowledge' was anything more than practical meditation techniques. Are you referring to the Christian/Judaic God? How does that make sense given the Hindu background of the subject? May I have some references for research pleaese? Savlonn (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC) One of the best papers I've seen on the topic is "The Guru: Perceptions of American Devotees of the Divine Light Mission", John A. Saliba, Horizons, 7/1 (1980) 69-81. If you email me I can send you a copy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC) the "techniques of knowledge" are meditation techniques. But Rawat has often said that he alone can give knowledge of god by using those techniques. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) According to Melton, he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults in the 70's that where willing to examine his claims to be able to impart a direct experience of the Divine (in a previous edition, he referred to a "direct experience of God"). Hunt writes, quite accurately that "The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence." This issue has been discussed in depth, and yes, it is not the "god" of Abrahamic religions, but closer to the dharmic traditions. See God#Conceptions_of_God ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC) We have plenty of sourcs for him being called "lord of the universe", and some of the propsoal include that. I don't recall any specific objection to its inclusion, so perhaps we should restore that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· We have plenty of sources for many things, and that does not mean that we mention these many things in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC) This is an important part of the notability of the subject. The way it was covered in some drafts was that he "dropped claims of divinity". That's sourceable to Joe Anctil. Any objection to adding that back to the sentence about dropping the "guru" title? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, are you suggesting that the fact Rawat was worshipped as the Lord of the Universe is not sufficiently significant to be included in the lede? As I've said before, the belief that Rawat revealed a direct experience of God, and that he was worshipped as God is, IMO, the only reason for his notability. --John Brauns (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC) How is it that "secular authors as as stressing emotional experience over intellect,[139] or lacking in intellectual content" is suggested when the surveys by two scholars (Downton and Galanter) that say Knowledge works are not included. Likewise no positive opinions are included. If this lead becomes anymore one sided, it will fall over.Momento (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I cannot see how creating a lead before the article can possibly work. This latest effort is the worst so far.Momento (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) We already have an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Is there any substantive objection to adding that, in addition to dropping the title "guru", he also dropped claims of divinity? The source would be the 1976 AP interview with Joe Anctil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC) You can make that change if you like. But I have been working on Version 13 since Version 16 is fatally biased.Momento (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Can you please say what the problem is specifically with P4.16? Jossi wrote it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) No mention of what supporters think, only what critics think. No mention that Rawat and Sant gurus promote a direct experience over theory; only "emotional" experience mentioned and that critics complain there is no intellectual content. No mention that lifestyle is irrelevant but two negative comments about lifestyle and not attributed to clergy.Momento (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Momento, this is an effort to craft a better intro, not the perfect intro. You are introducing new requirements that have never been discussed or proposed before. No previous version of the intro has contained the info you now demand. The views of supports are indeed covered, but the sympathetic description of Rawat's activities: "The focus of Rawat's teachings is on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual,[45]" The descriptions of his lifestyle don't come from clergy, so I don't know what you're talking about on that point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Will, Rawat didn't drop any claims of divinity in 1976 except for a few months when he experimented with presenting himself as a "humanitarian leader," or "inspirational speaker," so your 1976 statement would be very inaccurate. The resurgence of the worship of Rawat started the heaviest devotional period of this NRM in the 1970s. That took place at the end of 1976, at Rawat's own birthday celebration in Atlantic City, New Jersey (I was there) in December 1976, where he again wore his Krishna costume and crown again. His demand for devotion and surrender to him proceeded through the remaining years of the 70s and early 80s. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC) That may be true, but we have a source for this assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) My personal recollections are similar to yours, Sylvie, but neither of us are relevant. (I know you already knew that.) Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This is just the intro. We can get into the finer points of the subject's theology later in this article or in the "Teachings" article. The suggested text is a way of covering the issue briefly and with a reliable, undisputed source. No specific date needs to be given. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) P4.17 Brought up previous proposal that includes pro comments.Momento (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Momento,, this appears to be based on P4.13, and doesn't addres the concerns already raised about it. Jossi and I have come very close to consensus on P4.16. Could you please at least make the changes to that version that you think are necessary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Actually its based in the current version and addresses the problems I have with P4.16.Momento (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Here is the difference from 16, which is major.[31] Here is the difference from 13.[32] You've only changed one word. If you are taking this mediation seriously please don't misrepresent your proposals. If you're not taking the mediaiton seriously then please withdraw. This is not at all helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Please remain civil. I explained my reasons very clearly here [33].Momento (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Please don't misrepresent your edits. It's unhelpful to keep making the same proposal claiming that it's something new. Please look at the verion of P4.16 that Rumiton has edited, and respond to that instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC) P4.16a I just did some editing to Prop4.16 (if that was not the right thing to do I will make it into another separate proposal.) I think it reads a lot better now and might give us consensus. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC) P4.18 I object to language in this and some previous versions: while religious writers have characterised Rawat as materialistic, and described his lifestyle as luxurious It isn't only religious writers who've made these charges. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Why are critics being characterized as "religious" or "Christian?" The criticism of Rawat's wealth and lifestyle has been widespread by scholars of nrms and the media. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC) There are a number of problems with this draft, most of which have already been fixed in draft 19. However Jossi asked me to review this draft and say again what's wrong with it. A) Rawat's focus on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual[45] has led secular scholars to criticize his talks as stressing emotional experience over intellect,[160][56][55] while religious and other writers have characterised Rawat as materialistic, and described his lifestyle as luxurious.[161][162] How do we decide which scholars are secular and which are religious? B) There's no mention of the dropping of claims of divinity. C) Over the years, several organizations have been formed to assist in spreading his message, including the Divine Light Mission (1960)... The DLM wasn't founded in 1960 in order to assist in spreading Prem Rawat's message. D) ...independent studies have credited him with helping people experience inner peace. May we have the text from Downton that credits Rawat with bringing "inner peace"? E) ...made his message more universal... That's not in the source. F) Rawat's focus on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual[45] has led secular scholars to criticize... What's our source that says the one thing led to the other? It appears to be an unjustified conclusion. Several of these obbjections have been raised before. They have been addresed in Draft 19. Let's move forward rather keep resurrecting flawed text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I have responded to these already. Let's move forward rather keep resurrecting flawed arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Where have you responded to them? How come they're still in the proposal? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC) A) Here's a more accurate and concise summary of Rawat's teachings to clarify A) "Rawat's emphasis on a direct experience of the divine to obtain inner peace rather than theory or dogma has led some Christian clergy to criticize him for stressing what they call "emotional experience" over intellect. Rawat, who claims Knowledge is independent of culture, religion and lifestyle, has been criticized for enjoying a luxurious life. C) Here's Galanter and Downton "Over the long term of membership, meditation also played an important role in supporting a convert's continuing involvement. An analysis of the relationship between the time members spent in meditation and the decline in their level of neurotic distress revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress. This association suggests that the emotional response to meditation acts as a reinforcement for its continued practice.' That is, the more a member meditated, in general, the better the person was likely to feel. Members apparently used meditation to relieve distress, both at scheduled times and on an ad hoc basis. This tranquilizer, as it were, had its own reinforcing qualities and no doubt helped cement commitment to the sect. In this way, it had an addicting effect." And Downton "The aimlessness and lack of meaning which prevailed in their early lives has all but disappeared, for their involvement in the Mission has given their lives a definite direction and purpose. At one level, meaning developed as a consequence of their spiritual experience; at another, it emerged through the discovery of a social niche in the premie community. "I now know who I am, where I'm going, and why. Eliminating those confusions has made my life very easy." There is little doubt in my mind that these premies have changed in a positive way. Today, they seem less alienated, aimless, worried, afraid, and more peaceful, loving, confident, and appreciative of life. We could attribute these changes to surrender, devotion, and their involvement in the premie community. Each of these undoubtedly had a positive impact, but, if we accept what premies say, none were as critical as their experience of the universal spirit. Meditating on the life-energy for five years, they report having more positive attitudes about themselves. Perhaps Walt captures the feeling best: "Today, I'm less paranoid, fearful, unhappy, hung up, and selfish. I'm still basically the same person, but now I'm more positive, confident, understanding of others, stronger as a person, and happier.Momento (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) How does that show that one thing "led" to another, or that Christian clergy are the only one making the assertions? C) I don't see any mention of "inner peace" in those quotes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) There were no teachings for for people to criticize until he taught them. It is Rawat's dismissal of dogma and theory that were criticized, ergo his rejection of dogma and theory led the clergy to make their claim. "Inner peace" is a summary of "lack of neurotic distress","more peaceful, loving, confident, and appreciative of life"."less paranoid, fearful, unhappy, hung up, and selfish","more positive, confident, understanding of others, stronger as a person, and happier." but I thought that was too long for the lead.Momento (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) We can't draw that conclusion on our own. We also need source to tell us whish scholars are religious versus secular, if we're going to make that distinction. B) C) Those are anecdotal comments, not studies. What do the studies say? Also, the TPRF is not a suitable source for this information, as it's a self-published site. There are plenty of quotations in news accounts and scholarly articles that we can use instead. As for how to summarize them, let's find the quotations first and then decide how to summarize them. D) E) F) That's original research. We'd need a source that actually says that one thing led to the other. Still waiting for replies on the other points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) No, sorry. I am unwilling to discuss things if you are going to dismiss proposals in this manner. Self published sources are exactly the sources needed to assert the opinions of supporters. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) There are plenty of reliable 3rd-party sources for the views of followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) & F) I've removed "led to". We don't need to identify each scholar's persuasion but should summarize the major issues. And that is that is that Christian clergy, like Derks, Van der Lans, Hummel, Kranenborg, Wim Haan, Melton, have criticized Rawat for lack of theory. We don't need to list what non experts say. C) These aren't anecdotal comments from reporters, these are conclusions by a sociologist and a psychiatrist who studied followers. TPRF isn't the source, it is Galanter and Downton. News items are not expert opinions. Momento (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) Those aren't the only scholars who made the point about the lack of depth to the subject's teachings. For example, Bromley & Shupe say the same thing. B) C) The comment from Walt, for example, is an anecdote and not a study finding. The TPRF is listed as a source. Since it has no members, it is only a source for its directors, and presumably for the copyrighted works of Rawat. It is not a suitable source for the opinions of 3rd-parties. D) E) F) Thanks, but "led to" is still in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A)We don't have to note every single critic. It is enough that Christian clergy made the criticism. C) Walt's comment was anecdotal but Downton is using it to illustrate his point. Read the book, there's lots in it. F) It's gone in Draft 21.Momento (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) A) If we're going to attribute it properly we should say that "Both Christian and non-Christian scholars have..." We can't just refer to a few critics as that implies that they are the only scholars have made that criticism. B) C) I'd like to re-read the reference. Could someone please quote the text being cited? I don't have that page accessible. D) E) F) Why are you creating new drafts? Let's just fix one of them. Are we discussing P4.18 or P4.21? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "Sant Ji" There have been previous assertions that "Sant Ji" is an obsolete title only used during the subject's childhood. I just found this article from 2003 which iidentifies the subject as "Santji Maharaj Prem Rawat".[34] So apparently the title is still in use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· That arrticle does not mentions Sant Ji, but "Santji", which is a honorary way to address a person in India who is considered a Sant. For example [35] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Naming guidelines suggest names and recognized pseudonyms should be included in the lead but titles, childhood names etc shouldn't.Momento (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Naming conventions only cover what to name articles. Do you mean WP:MOSBIO? It says the opposite. "The opening paragraph should give: Name(s) and title(s), if any". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC) In the proposal we are already mentioning the most notable names, titles and pseudonyms. So, what is the issue here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I personally love the name "Sant Ji". Cagan has an entire chapter under that name. Still, I do think that it is more useful to have the childhood names in the Childhood section. 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I'm just pointing out that it appears to be a current title/name, not a childhood name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Not really.... As I said, "Santji" and even "Maharaji" are common ways to address a respected guru (and sometimes just prominent people) in India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Right. And both titles were applied to the subject in 2003. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I think "names & titles' refers to something a little more substantial than childhood names and what your fans call you.Momento (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC) It includes stagenames. As the link above shows, it's not just a childhood name - it was used just five years ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) One mention five years ago? I don't think that's enough.Momento (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Mediator note Just so all of you know, see this. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Steve, I am truly sorry you are feeling so disheartened. Perhaps a break away might restore your idealism, the sine qua non for tedious work like this. If you get up as far as Brisbane, drop me a line. I have a great BBQ place. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I also hope that your break will restore your passion. You have a made a real, signifcant difference, at least to me. I made a few occasional comments on this article before mediation, but basically didn't see a light at the end of the endless debates until you started the mediation process. It was your mediation framework that gave me the incentive to register and get much more involved, based on the hope you provided that we really can find a way forward.Savlonn (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Savlonn and others here. It would be a pity to lose you as a mediator... hope you can stick around and continue lending a hand. Your help has been great so far.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I'll be staying around for now, there are two reasons I haven't flat out retired, one is this case, the other is WP:24. Would fall to pieces if I wasn't leading it. Anyway, how is all the discussion going? Steve Crossin (contact) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Steve, what you describe is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. There can be no end to defending the truth against those who will use Wikipedia for their own ends. The only solution is for Wikipedia to lose its search engine rankings. You say that you will continue to mediate this case, but how long will that take, and when you do retire, what is to stop vested interests making a mockery of the idea of an encyclopedia for this subject? I hope you find better things to do with your life as I have. --John Brauns (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Well, Steve, I had thought you were doing a quite good job until you stomped off the other day. I thought you could have stood to learn more about this subject matter, because I think it's impossible to wade through these many discussions without at least a modicum of familiarity. I'm going to need some reassurance from you that in the future when you need a break, you'll take it, because everybody gets burned out. It's not reassuring to me that our assigned mediator completely lost it, then walked off in a tantrum. That's not acceptable to me at all. Maybe that's another problem with Wikipedia: Too many immature, unqualified people in charge of things they aren't prepared to handle. That said, if you can make a commitment to pay better attention to this article, and a commitment you have some staying power, I'll accept you back as mediator. Otherwise, I think the participating editors ought to consider asking for another mediator altogether. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I think that you misunderstand the reason I went on a break. While it may seem that I went on break due to this case, the opposite is true. I decided to stay on Wikipedia so I could mediate this case, I didn't go on a break to get away from it. I'd have thought you would have given me more credit, and read the message more carefully. Have a look at my userpage again, updated message. read this, though. Quote: I still feel obligated to my current case. Probably I could have explained it better, but I was in no way going on a break due to the fact that this case is a difficult one. It actually started because Mel had been harassed on-wiki, which led to her retiring. Quote: 'm tired of the fact a loved one can't edit a website without feeling harassed or threatened or being hit on by some lame person.. That was the main reason, and I didn't throw a tantrum or blow up. I'm a stable person who doesn't react easily, but if the right buttons are pressed, well, everyone has sore spots. Mine is my marriage, that's just how things work. I'm back on Wikipedia, after having a weekend off. Anyway, I hope you can understand this and accept me as a mediator. Steve Crossin (contact) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Steve, I didn't misunderstand. I did read your whole statement and I was concerned about you and especially about your wife. But that's not all you said about leaving for a long time. You had other complaints, and you didn't list the harassment issue as the primary one. I completely understand your reaction to her situation and especially your protectiveness of her. No question about it. Now that you did explain yourself more, no further discussion about it is required by you to me, and I hope you do continue to mediate here because I think you're good at it. I hope you and your wife are feeling better now, and take some measures to protect yourselves online. Many thanks for your response. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I concur with Sylvie, Steve. Please put back on your big white hat and natty little black bow tie (or whatever the current uniform is) and resume mediating. You ARE good at it. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I have read and agree with what you wrote Steve.Momento (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) More from me Alright, back to full activity editing, and mediating. Apologies that I haven't been on much, there have been things going on. I think we can all appreciate real life issues. Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on this, though not commenting, I haven't been doing much as of recent. I wouldn't wish Pleurisy on anyone. Anyway, thanks for being patient here. I'll keep a constant eye on the pages, as I have been. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Welcome back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 19 I've posted Draft 19. It builds on 4.16, fixing some particular concerns addressed above. It includes the dropping of divinity claims. It drops the attribution of the characterization of materialism and luxury to religious scholars, since those are wide-spread characterizations. It removes the POV "Shri" title from Hans Ji. It adds the experience of followers (from p4.18), though a source is needed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Obviously an oversight, you left out "He now has a world-wide following." And Shri is not POV, any more than Mahatma in Mahatma Gandi is. See my Proposal 20. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Works for me, Rumiton. Just add the sources.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I've added the material Rumiton requested to Draft 19. Any other comments or objections to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Assessment Not convinced yet by any of the proposals, none of them actually an improvement over what's currently the article's lead. Nor content-wise, nor even more fluent stylistically. But not worried at all either: quite naturally the prop about the lead section would be one of the first to start, and one of the last to finalise. Some practical issues: "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in ..." would shorten the long parenthesis in the first sentence of the article. The abbreviation "b." is discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'd prefer the variant names to be outside parenthesis too, and bolded (see relevant MoS pages: WP:MOSBIO, WP:Lead section). "Over the years, several organizations have been formed to assist in spreading his message, including the Divine Light Mission (1960) ..." (my bolding) – misleading: DLM was "formed" in 1960 by Rawat's father for quite different reasons. I'd encourage to name the most relevant organisations in the lead though. Including DUO as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) The trouble with mentioning DUO is that it isn't notable and we have conflicting sourcs over its role and relationship to the subject and to the DLM. It's not even mentioned in the article at the moment, and only gets a passing mention in the DLM article. The current lead doesn't realy address the notability of the subject. Among other things, it doesn't even mention the DLM or Elan Vital. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I've made the other changes you suggest to Draft 19. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC) No context, no attribution, no deal: Some authors have criticized his talks as stressing emotional experience over intellect Context, attribution, deal: Rawat's focus on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual has led secular scholars to criticize his talks as stressing emotional experience over intellect Same applies to other areas of this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) What context would you like? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The one in the second bullet above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Rawat has been called materialistic and his lifestyle has been called luxurious- Poor English ... while other writers have characterized Rawat as materialistic, and described his lifestyle as luxurious. - Good English. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) "Some authors" is not good enough, do you have a problem with attribution? What is the issue with: Rawat's focus on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual[45] has led secular scholars to criticize his talks as stressing emotional experience over intellect ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) OK, we can make that change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) How do we know the scholars are secular? Who calls them that? What does that mean and why is it important? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Important, as to differentiate secular scholars from the religious scholars that we cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) And how do we know which scholars are religious and which are secular? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) We know. A Religious scholar is a religious scholar, and an non-religious scholar is a non-religious scholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The DLM was not created in 1971, but in 1960 by his father, and Prem Rawat was recognized in 1966 as his successor. Draft 18 and 20 are superior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC) But we're saying that it was "formed to assist in spreading his message". Obviously the one founded in 1960 was not formed to spread his message. I've simply deleted the date, which is easier than explaininng the situation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Remove "formed", then. Over the years, several organizations have assisted in spreading his message ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Why do we need the date of the formation of the Indian DLM in the intro? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The dates are there to provide a framework of time. PR has been a teacher for more than 40 years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC) But he wasn't a teacher in 1960, so the date of the founding of hte Indian DLM isn't important to the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I do not see what are the problems with Draft 18. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC) This section is devoted to improving draft 19. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Which is two milimeters apart from Draft 18. So, what's the point? 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC) They're really quite different. Note that Draft 19 is based on Draft 16 that you wrote and that Rumiton further edited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Not that different, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Looking at it as dispassionately as I can, I still think Draft 20 is an improvement. "Emancipated minor" status is something applied for and granted, not "declared". And the point that PR's emphasis is on inner peace and stillness, not on intellectual fulfillment, needs to be made. It is a better article for the addition. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Fixed these issues at Draft 18. Please take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I've edited Draft 19 to read, "Granted emancipated minor status at...". The draft alrady says "The focus of Rawat's teachings is on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual." - What more does Rumiton want it to say? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I ask again, what is missing from Draft 18? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I'll respond above, in #P4.18. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Rumiton wants it to say what Draft 20 says, but after some tweaks will accept Draft 21. Draft 22 is a joke. Maybe it might improve. Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 18 is fine also. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC) D22 Started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Good for a chuckle, Francis, but little else. Way, way not neutral. Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Interesting op-ed, maybe, not a neutral summary of the article ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 5

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some comments No mention of the date of these studies, and that is needed No mention of the size of the sample studied, and that is also needed. As I have argued enough by now, context is always needed. We need to add material from other studies. Galanter, and Conway, Flo & Siegelman are noted for their POV. We need material from other studies/observations made, for balance, i.e. Downton, Barret, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Also missing from that summary are other results from the study, such as social cohesiveness, and decline of distress upon joining (p.8). BTW, Galanter states that survey was based on 119 people that received questionnaires (p.29), but he does not describe how many responded. The date of the survey is not noted, but the book was printed in 1999. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Conway, Flo & Siegelman, is there a reason you omitted other findings from that study? Also note that the sample used is quite strange as it is described as being based on on a total of 353 members of 48 different groups, without saying how many of these were from the DLM (!)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Also note who Stillpoint Press is [36] (publishers of Comway/Siegelman). WP:SPS? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC) SPS indeed: Stillpoint Press, 20 Park Ave., New York, NY, United States, founded in 1995 - Corporate officers: Siegelman, James; Conway Flo. Source: Company Intelligence Database, Thomson Gale; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Only the second edition of Snapping is self-published. The study was included inthe first edition, so that's a moot point. If you'd like to improve the material with the other studies and greater context then please do. The text posted is just a starting point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Which edition you are quoting? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I am still awaiting for an answer to this: Which edition have you consulted for your edits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) See the citation. The copy I have in hand is the 1995 edition. I can obtain the 1st edition if it matters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Se, how do we know that the "study" was included in any non-self published edition? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) The 1995 edition is self-published. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Awaiting for a response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I'm fine with leaving the Snapping study out of this revision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 2 Based on Proposal 1, with these additions/changes: Added context for the survey, instead of just raw numbers Stated the size of the sample, and the method of survey Tightened some of the text Formatted source ref ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) The work yuo did on the Galanter material is fine, though it makes it quite a bit longer. Why did you delete the Snapping study? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Why? Because the data is meaningless: 353 members of 48 groups total were used in that "study". Meaning that the sample used for numbers of one group is statistically irrelevant, and to put their statistics in that context is simply too much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Is that just your opinion, or are has this source been deprecated in more reliable sources? If it's just your opinion it doesn't count for much, no disrespect intended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Can you please tell me, Will, how this data can be anything but unusable? 353 people of 48 groups (as explained in that "study") make it what, an average of 7 people per group? How is that sample meaningful? I am not going to abandon my good judgment, Will, and if you want that material added, we will have to present that information to our readers. My point is: it is not worth the effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) And also, do you know who the authors are? What are their credentials used to assert relevancy, if any? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) It's not for us to second-guess research methodologies in reliable sources. Are you arguing that this is not a reliable source? For the record, another editor has said he think it's a reliable source. "Having said that, there is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are an acceptable source in the overall panorama of sources. Jayen466 18:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)" We allow Geaves, who has a viewpoint. Having a viewpoint does not exclude a source. Anyway, keep writing your other material and we can just add this study to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I am not second guessing, am I? I am just stating the facts: a "study" of 353 members of 48 groups 'total, one of which was the DLM, is statistically meaningless. An opinion is one thing, Will, but this material is not presented as an opinion, thus my concern about including it as you did. Read the last sentence of your proposal. Read it and tell me how does it reads, as a fact, or as an opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) If we attribute it then the authors are responsible for their views. We can include the groups size and let readers decide how valid it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) You are welcome to add that material with the numbers and attribution to your proposal. I will not bother with it, as I think it is useless information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Moving forward, in what books or papers do Downton and Barret describe the demographics of the membership? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Pages 227 to 231 of Downton's "Sacred Journeys" contain a description of the method used to collect demographic information via questionnaires during Downton's study as well as detailed demographics based on the sample he studied. Do you have the book? If you don't, I'll need to find some time and scan these six pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) There are also many references to demographics and comparisons throughout the book. These will take more time to find and summarize. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I have those pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I support this proposal. Prop 1 includes people who are no longer members and prop 3 makes unnecessary comparisons with other groups.Momento (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 3 I've taken Jossi's P2 and added a summary of Downton's study. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Mometno's comment above. Downton is a reliable source. The comparisons to other groups are necessary context, which is why the study included them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Don't think it is necessary. This is not an article about comparisons with other groups. Do we have material about the DLM in the Hare Krishna article? Don't think so. Pairing it down to the relevant material is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Well, I think it's useful to see what the numbers are for similar groups. It puts the psychedelic drug use in context, for example. But if editors think context is unnecessary then I suppose we can remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I strongly object to deleting the Hare Krisha membes while keeping the college students. Jossis; selective deletion doesn't jibe with his explanation that we don't mention the DLM in the Hare Krishna article - we don't mention the DLM in the College article either. That selective deletion misstates the study and is dishonest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I do not appreciate the "dishonest" bit, Will. Do you have any proposals on how to address the concerns? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) You may not appreciate it but it's true. To include one study group but pretend the other didn't occur is dishonest. I see no legitimate reason to delete that context. We should describe the actual study. If your concern is that the Hare Krishan article doesn't incluce a mention of the study then we can propsoe adding it there too. I don't really see a need for them both to mention it. The study was primarily about DLM members, not Hare Krishana members who were just there for comparison to a similar group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I still don't appreciate you comment, regardless what you may consider to be true or not. This article is about the DLM, not about other groups. So, one possibility is to summarize the material in a way that present the study as it relates to the DLM only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We already mention the Hare Krishna elsewhere in this article. The fact of the matter is that the two groups were often considered together. Anyway, if this is the way you feel then why did you leave in one of the control groups? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 5. Proposal 3 is essentially sound except that the forms of the two studies (Galanter and Downton)were not specified. Addressing this in Prop.5 has two benefits - firstly the reader can be provided with a WP link [[37]] to assist their understanding of the process involved in the Galanter study, unfortunately there is no comparable source for Comparative study. Secondly and specific to the Rawat articles, previous use of Galanter in the WP articles has been obscurantist with poor contextualisation seeming to suggest that Galanter concluded that the DLM meditation conferred psychological health benefits. Galanter certainly did not suggest direct benefits from meditation, but identifies the meditation as important to group cohesion - the cohesion being the identified source of benefit: "The relevance of such experience to participation in a charismatic group may be clarified by considering how these members attribute meaning to their daily experiences. A compelling alteration in a person's subjective state, whether from drugs or to a novel social context, leaves the person open to ascribing new meaning to experiences. This certainly applies to the altered consciousness associated with meditation, which serves as a vehicle for destabilizing old attitudes and preparing the meditator to accept the group's beliefs. It acts to support the group's cohesiveness and stabilize and even enhance a member's acceptance of the group." Downton makes a useful contrast with Galanter. Jossi's proposal to exclude 'party' data from a Comparative study is misguided at best - it certainly is not Encyclopaedic; to argue to neuter Downton's work in that way is to argue against the validity of Downton as whole, even I wouldn't go that far although I find Downton's perspective on Gurusim somewhat dubious.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I see no problems with P.5. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) If the study is about "Group Cohesiveness" and not specifically about the DLM, why are we using that material in an article about the DLM? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Because it's a study of group cohesiveness among DLM members. It's directly relevant to the subject. Are you actually suggesting that it isn't a proper source for the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Is this an article about group cohesiveness theories? or an article about an organization called DLM? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The information in this proposal is about members of the DLM. What the rest of the book says is irrelevant. We use other sources that aren't primarily about the DLM. I've never heard anyone ever suggest that a source must solely be about the subject. We use the relvant parts of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, would you please clarify whether you consider Galanter and Downton to be reliable sources, and if you do not please explain why. Your apparent objections to the use of the material in Proposals 3. and 5. seems at face value to be utterly perverse. You have elsewhere stated that Galanter and Price are not neutral sources and I recall that previously you have objected to Foss & Larkin, which suggests you are unhappy with four out of five of the only first hand academic studies of Rawat's followers and associated organisations. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I have no need to provide clarifications about if these sources are RS or not, as I have consistently argued that RS can only be assessed in the context they are used. If we decide to use Galanter or Downton, we need to carefully summarize them as it relates to the subject of the article, ensuring that the summary does not extend beyond it. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC) So is anyone proposing changes to Prop.5 or are we ready to add the text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Not ready. Proposal 5 has several problems, including a wikilink to an unrelated article, and the assertion that the study "A study of the effects of Group Cohesiveness" which is OR. The study was not on the effects, it was just a "Study of Group Cohesiveness" in the context of what Galanter describes as "charismatic groups"[sic] It also has factually inaccurate information (by 119 DLM members attending a festival in 1978). That is not correct as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I didn't want to change Nik's proposal, so I added P6, which is identical to P5 except it removes "effects of", per your concern. As for the scope fo the study, Galanter writes, We...gfave copies to 119 subjects who were active members of the Divine Light Mission, selcted at random from the festival registration lines. How is the summary in the proposal incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) How is the summary in the proposal incorrect? It is incorrect because it reads:based on questionnaire responses given by 119 DLM members attending a festival in 1978. Where that comes from? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I still don't see your objection. The quote I gave you confirms that it was given to 119 DLM members at a festival. Is the 1978 date the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Apparently the study was conducted in 1974, and first reported in 1978. I'll fix that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Not at a festival, but at festivals. There is no other information provided by Galanter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) OK, so you only object is the omission of an "s"? Fine. I'll add the "s" and we can post this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Fixed it and made it closer to the source: A study of group cohesiveness carried out by Marc Galanter in 1974, based on questionnaire responses given by 119 DLM members randomly chosen from festival registration lines,... Glad we could work that out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I thought we'd solved all of the issues. Is there anything more that can't be fixed by editng the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC) It looks like it, but as this is part of the mediation process, it is up to Steve, the mediator, to assess consensus as per his request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I've been asking for help from the mediator on another issue and hadn't heard anything. I assumed he was AWOL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'll send a message to everyone, and see what they think. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Looking at the latest version, that's a radical improvement in quality over the original. So, first off, well done, guys. One thing that would be very nice to include is baseline comparisons for the Galanter study. You may have noticed, Dowton's study offers a statistical analysis against a baseline, "college students". Jossi rightly points out that context is very important, and that baseline in Dowton is the context. I'd be surprised if Galanter's study didn't offer something similar by way of reference to other studies or surveys from the same time frame, even if he didn't have his own control group for his study. If we could offer up those numbers, if they're available, that would be great. It would make stats like the 45% of members who smoked pot before joining have more meaning if we knew what that stat looked like for the general population (for example). The study might have that info for us already...researchers are (usually) good like that. I see you're referencing a book...if I could have the name of the 1974 study itself and any other publication info you could give, I could try and track it down. Mael-Num (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) It would also be helpful if Galanter's defines "seriously distressed", we could provide his criteria for the definition. Mael-Num (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Another couple of minor points. Could we change "tripping on LSD" to "under the influence of LSD" or "while using LSD" or something similar? "Tripping" isn't really encyclopedia-speak. And this sentence: Compared to the college students, fewer DLM members had had religious upbringings and they tended to have had worse family experiences though only 17% came from "broken homes". Could use a little clarification. What is meant by having "had worse family experiences"? Is it a matter of more of them having bad family experiences compared to control, or that there was some metric employed to guage relative family experience, and that DLM members tended to score worse? Also, what's a "broken home"? It probably means it means "having experienced a divorce in the household, regardless of remarrying", but back then they might have only been looking at single parent situations. Whatever it is, say that instead of "broken homes". Mael-Num (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Mael-Num, most of that language is taken straight from Downton, including "tripping" and "broken homes". "Worse family experiences" comes from Premies tended to be considerably more critical of their family experiencs. They were more likely to rate their family experiences on the "poor" side than nonfollowers, who tended to rate theirs as "average." Premies also tended to come from homes where there was less equality between their parents: 25 percent of nonfollowers viewed the relative dominance of their parents as "equal", while only 9 percent of prmies and 10 percent of Krishnas felt that way. There were also a number of similarities between the two groups. On average, neither premies nor college students were likey to have come from broken homes, the figures being 15 and 15 percent, respectively. As for Galanter's "seriously distressed", he used something called the "Psychological Distress Scale". The average of all items on that scale was 71 before joining and 37 at the time of the study. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding the original "1974" Galanter study, I believe it's this: 1978 Galanter, M., and Buckely, P. "Evangelical religion and meditation: Psychotheapeutic effect". Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 166 685-691 I don't have easy access to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Will. I'll try and pull it tomorrow and see what I can see. And again, great work thus far. Mael-Num (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The "Psychological Distress Scale" appears to have been an ad hoc tool devised for the study rather than a standard test. It has 8 questions, each with a numerical asnwer from 1 to 5. The questions are things like, "I feel nervous and tense", "I had thoughts of ending my life", "I got into trouble with my job, at schoo, or with the law". etc. Downton notes what aspect of distress each symptom is connected to: anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, referrential thinking, anomie, behavioral, hearing voices, and general emotional maladaption. Drug use was also gauged in a other set of questions. Lastly, a third set of questions coverred gropu cohesiveness. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ready? If there are no "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments" to this proposal, let's post it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think the best thing to do here is post all parties (not me :) ) a message linking them to the proposal, that way, no party can say they were unaware of the proposal. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Notice of this discussion has already been posted. Anyone who's intersted should be expected to be paying attention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Of course Will, but as I said, if all parties are aware, and no substantiated objections are made, then there is no way that they can say that they didn't agree, or that there was no consensus. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Unless there are substantiated objections by 00:00 UTC June 9, I propose the edit is made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Alright, I'll be sure I'm around at that time. How far away is that? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) + 9 hours from now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Alright, I'll set my alarm for 9.45am. I'd prefer to do the {{editprotected}} request myself though. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I haven't seen these sources, so am happy if those who do are in agreement. I feel a little disquieted by the apparent lack of a control group for this data gathering, I would like to see a comparison with people of the same age, race, educational level and gender in the general population. How unusual were these people before joining, and how unusual were their reported changes? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I agree that all that control information would be dandy, but if it's not there it's not there. We can't do the research for the researchers. It doesn't look like it was terribly germane to the study, what he was trying to prove, in any case. I think it's okay without it. Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) There were two control groups in Downton's study. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Please use proposal#6, that is #5 text but with all sources added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) My comment above aside, I don't really like the word "tripping" and the phrase "broken home". I don't think the ideas of stigma and political correctness had yet dawned on the world of academia in the 70's, but we have them now. Even if it's paraphrasing, I think we should do that. Suggest: "using" and "families that have experiened a divorce" (assuming that's what he's calling a broken home). That sound OK? Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "Tripping" has only one meaning, so saying "while hallucinating on LSD" would be the equivalent. "Broken homes" could include parents that have split without divorce, and is more vague. Perhaps he uses more "encyclopedic" terminology in his earlier papers? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Mael-Num. It isn't revisionism or OR to apply today's standards to the tone of an encyclopedia article. Today's standards are more mature, in just about every field of thought. But as I said, I don't have a problem with this stuff. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) It's fine to use more modern terminology when we know for sure what the author meant. If there's any doubt we should stick to the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC) If we don't know for sure what the author meant, we should not include that author's writings. Otherwise we could be contradicting all manner of Wikipedia rules without knowing it. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 6

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal1 Presumably "Proposal 0" is the current text. What is tht proposed change? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I am working on it, see proposal #1 which is not completed yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Time to roll my sleeves up :-) If the purpose of this lead/lede is to summarize this section, including criticism, then I think we first need to discuss/debate the scope of the section before agreeing the actual wording of the lead. I feel that writing the lead now before agreeing the sections is a bit too ‘top down’. I think that consensus on this very contentious section can only be agreed by painfully agreeing on each sub-section first, then producing the lead based on the agreed sub-sections. However, the rest of my comments cover the ‘top down’ approach of agreeing the lead first, should other editors feel that this should become the agreed approach. My initial reaction to Proposal 1 is that it purely summarizes a narrow range of very academic material, whilst the material in this section is much broader. I suggest that we first agree the key areas of ‘reception’, then ensure that the lead section fairly reflects this consensus and the section itself. My first stab/brainstorm of key points to consider includes: Early success/growth of movement, especially internationally (in existing proposal) Counterpoint of decline after peak growth. Lack of intellectual content Focus on practical teachings as counterpoint to above point ‘Sumptuous’ lifestyle (or other words to reflect this point) Perception of divine nature and/or religious/supernatural claims Skeptical / rationalist counterpoint to above point Anti Rawat movement (if accepted as notable) Claims relating to brainwashing/deprogramming and related counterpoints Of course this is too much for a 2 sentence lead to this section, so would appreciate any suggestions of how to summarize the essence of this section. Savlonn (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I am not sure this approach would work, as it would mean to leave the rest of the article solely for biographical information. I would prefer to use the current approach in which biographical aspects are intervened with other narratives and viewpoints not necessarily biographical per se. This section, as it stands now, could focus on salient aspects related on how he was/is received, hence the name of the section. That is, significant opinions across the board about these aspects. Having said that, and as this is a proposal page, you can start a new section and develop content and suitable subsections as you have described above. As time progresses, we may merge different portions, conflate others, create new ones, etc. So, roll your sleeves indeed! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Just about everyone who has written about the subject could be added to this section. "Salient aspects" is a broad mandate. I hope editors are prepared for this to grow very large. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC) No necessarily, Will. I am re-reading the sources and there is specific material that can be used. Not all material is suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC) What material is unsuitable, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Tons. You can give it a try by reading some of 50-odd sources that we have used in the article and will easily spot what may be useful for this section and what would not. That is what I am doing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) As I said before I see lots, maybe even "tons", of sources that could be used for this section. You say that some are unsuitable. I'm asking why and which ones. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC) As I said, I am re-reading and adding material that I find fits this section and discarding what I think is not. I would argue my additions, but will not argue text that I am not adding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm just saying that there are many, many sources that discuss Rawat's reception. You've said that not all of those are suitable but have refused to give any explanation. Fair enough. But don't be surprised at seeing proposals that include far more sources than P6.1. Furthmore, it appears that P6.1 wold delete a large amout of imformation if it entirely replaces P6.0. Deleting that previously-agreed upon material is not likely to gain a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Note the [...] at the end of Proposal #1, denoting that I will be adding more material from the existing version as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Let us know when you're done and ready for input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC) However I'd suggest taking this one subsection at a time. Its going to be harder to edit and gain consensus for two or more sections at once. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Let "us" know? Do you represent a specific faction, or something? You are welcome to comment as these proposals are developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) "Us", the other editors. Are you finished with Propsoal 1 or are you still developing it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Did you miss the tag at the top of my proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC) That's new. I suggest again breaking the proposal down into smaller pieces. We spent over 16,000 words of discussion before agreeing on the roughly 190 words in Proposal 1. This proposal is already nearly 900 words long. Do we want to spend 90,000 words discussing it? Why not just take it a paragraph at a time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Not to big, IMO. I will continue working of the material for the section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Structure I'm not discouraging that the content be worked on, expanded, trimmed, rearranged, or improved in whatever way or negotiated in whatever appropriate place, with future consensus for other subsection headers (on the contrary, and I'd play an active role there too!), but here's my proposal, for the time being, with the current content and arrangement: ==Reception== Following (remains) Media → Media coverage Authority → Charisma and leadership Critical viewpoints → Rawat's students (new, after Schnabel/VdLans para and before Barbour para:) Former followers (copied here per Savlonn's suggestion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Subsection headers with current content (proposal) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)) I agree, and would like to focus here on creating this structure, and agreeing scope of the 'Reception' section, ideally keeping the discussion at a high level initially to avoid getting bogged down too early in disputes about specific sources. The first question I would like to discuss is: How much emphasis should be placed on having all related material under a broad 'Reception' section, as opposed to blending material into the main article? The two extremes are to have all subjective material here, and to completely remove the section and have all material blended into the chronographically arranged sections. I know this has been discussed ad-infinitum previously, so feel free to reference previous discussions. The difference this time is that hopefully the structured mediation framework will enable some consensus to be reached. My opinion is that we need to have a fairly broad section here, as much of Rawat's notability is in respect to people's opinions of him personally, as opposed to his teachings and movement. To put it bluntly, the very polarized opinions of the editors here makes the case in point, though of course representing an insignificant minority. However, it does make sense in some cases to blend material where there is a strong correlation with a specific event or timeframe referenced in the rest of the biography. For example, we already have the rapid growth and subsequent decline of the movement (and thus Rawat's popularity) referred to in another section, so there is no need to repeat it here. In addition to the sections nominated by Francis above, I would like to see a reference to perceptions and/or claims of divinity by his followers. Savlonn (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I'd have that topic included in the "Rawat's students" subsection. I think it would make excellent sense in such section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC) The proposed structure does not work for me; (a) Media, is too generic; We do not have a section called "Books" for example, event if we hare quoting from books, are we? (b) "Following" can contain material for students, numbers, as well as any suitable information about vocal critics. (c) Former followers does not deserve a separate section, any such material can be included in "Following". Again I do not see how we can discuss structure without the content, it seems to me to be strange, very strange.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree with Jossis's points about "Following". Right now that section is narrowly focused on numbers of followers. I think that focus should be kept. "Vocal critics" should not be added to it. In general, I think that material should be kept as chronological as possible, and we should keep the non-chronological material to a minimum (which may still be a large minimum). I don't understand Francis' division between "students" and "former followers" - why not merge those and use them to include viewpoints of current and former students/followers? Overall, this mostly seems to divide up folks and then give their views. I think it's better to cover topics and give all views on those topics, as we do in the Authority/Charisma section. Can we pick out topics that get significant commentary, and create subsections on those instead? Regarding Jossi's last point, the benefit of working on structure first is to see what to research, what content to find. Picking out certain content will tend to support having a certain structure, whether intentional or not. Until we agree on what topics to cover we can't easily agree on what content we use to cover those topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC) How about we try going one level down to bullet pointing the main areas of content proposed for each sub-section. This will provide some context for the proposed structure of this section. I have made a quick attempt to summarise Proposal 1 as an example. However, it would be much better if Jossi did this in his own words for the purpose of any serious discussion. Again, I have just done this as an example. (maybe we should use the templates for this?) Reception Lead Strong following from counterculture in 1971-73 Perception of divinity from followers Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position ‘Banal’ speech in 1974 Charisma & Leadership as per proposal 2) Following Early growth and later decline of movement More on perception of divinity and later renouncement Public Image DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance Public Appearances, honors & Awards 1 Million people at procession in New Delhi at age 12 Received ‘keys to the city’ (list of cities) Now we can debate the structure without getting too hung up yet on specifics. In this case, the four main heading titles (not including lead) are either neutral or positive. There’s no ‘critical viewpoints’ sub-section. As per the discussion over the last few months, that simply isn’t going to fly. Specifically, there’s nothing about the anti-Rawat movement and no reference to Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle. Etc, etc, etc… The whole point is that with this approach we can have a very pragmatic debate about the structure and what is fair balance/weighting, hopefully in days instead of weeks, without stopping the whole show getting caught up in debate about the details and appropriate sources, etc. Yes – all that needs to happen, but I feel we can get there much faster with this approach. Savlonn (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with this approach - it's better to start with an outline. However I think this proposed outline puts too much into the reception section that should be in the main article. For example: Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position ‘Banal’ speech in 1974 DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance Public Appearances, honors & Awards These all appear to be topics that can be handled chronologically. Why include them in "Reception" rather than in the chronology of the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Will, is your last point directed at Jossi or myself? Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to propose my idea of an outline for this section, but was attempting to objectively summarize Jossi's Proposal 1 into an example outline. Please disregard if your point was directed at Jossi. I envisaged that others would follow debate by creating their own versions of outlines for discussions - (perhaps using the proposal templates).Savlonn (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I was referring to the outline. Perhaps Jossi can explain his thinking in creating this outline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Trying to have some quality time with family. Will respond in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC) <<< Some of the material in my proposal can be easily incorporated into the chronology, and we should consider that as an option. The only material that would not fit, would be "Charisma and leadership", "Following". So we may need to revisit this. Ideas? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Ideas for what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) You don't get it? There is material in my proposal (that by the way it is not close to be completed) that could easily be placed in the chronology. So I am asking for ideas on how to address this editorial dilemma: Should all material that is time-sensitive be placed in the chronology, leaving other aspects that are not in the "Reception" section? Should the "Reception section" expand on existing chronological material? SHould the "Reception" section be also chronological. etc, etc. All editorial decisions, that in my view would be better discussed once we have new material for this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) My opinion is that this article, like all biographies, is best organized chronologically. Material which neither discusses a particular period or event, or which weren't notable when they were published, is the only kind that should be relegated to topical sections at the end. However, that means that editors need to accomodate sometimes critical material throughout the article. We've already seen in some other proposals that editors say things like "no opinions". Well, opinions belong in the article and if editors don't want a "criticism" section then they have to accept negative material elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) This might be an excellent time for all of us to refresh our understanding of the stringent requirements of biographies of living persons, the letter and the spirit thereof. 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I do not understand what Will is saying. The article already includes negative/critical material throughout the chronology. I do not understand also what is this argument of "no opinions" when we actually have plenty of scholarly opinions throughout the article already. I still look forward for ideas from others about what to do with this "Reception" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) No source provided for " The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]". In any case, we should stick with facts rather than opinions.Momento (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC) That's what I'm referring to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I do not know why you bring this up here, as I do not see any such comments from Momento in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I posted that quote because you seemed to be unaware that opinions were being discouraged by active editors of this article. My point is that we either have a criticism cestion, or we allow critical material throughout the article. Do we all agree that it's better to mix the critical material? or do people prefer to have a criticism section? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) We already have critical material throughout the article, so I do not know why you are asking about "allowing critical materials throughout the article". Please re-read the article. And if other material is presented to be considered for inclusion, it will need to be done in the context of a balanced and neutral article, as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, not just WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC) We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, and there is much more to consider adding. Dogmatic assertions that we should only have facts instead of opinions are inappropriate. Opinions, aka viewpoints, are a vital part of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC) We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, I would strongly disagree with your opinion. There is abundant criticism already in the article. This is a biography of a living person, not a WP:COATRACK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) <<<< I do not think it is very useful to make general and/or blanket comments about content, structure, etc without the content. There is only one way to do this and it is by creating and developing content. Only when you have content and you bring it to discussion (as we did with the content about charisma) it is useful. I would simply ignore theoretical conversations not supported by proposals that submit content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Saul V. Levine There are some writings by Saul V. Levine which might add some counterpoint to material provided in Prop2. Levine is not from the sociological school of thought, rather, he's a psychiatrist who has studied and written papers/articles on NRMs/cult, including DLM. Not all scholars are sociologists of NRMs/cult. Some, like Margaret Singer, were/are clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who offer a different perspective than the group represented in the article. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Please provide some prose (with refs) of what you propose to be included in the Prem Rawat article. Also indicate where you think it can be incluced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Galanter is also not a sociologist, and we are using him in ths and related articles. Levine wrote one article in a 1989 book edited by Galanter, called "Cults and New Religious Movements". I do not see there anything that has not been covered already, besides making some general comments about the DLM being "vilified" and "held in low esteem", but nothing specific about Prem Rawat besides a comment about how parents see religious leaders living in "offensive opulence". Note that Levine advocates in his conclusion to his article for "the prosecution and persecution" of groups. Clearly Levine is a person with strong opinions about non-mainstream religious groups that cannot be ignored when assessing this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) If we have reliable sources that characterize Levine's "strong opinions" then we can refer to them. (I wouldn't say that calling for the prosecution of groups that break the law, and tolerance for those that don't, is an especially strong opinion.) Sources don't need to be neutral. As for the general point, we need to be sure we differentiate Rawat form the DLM. Commentary about them belongs in their respective articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Right, Will. After thinking about it, I realized that if Levine were used, it would be more appropriate in DLM article. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC) P6.2 According to the website of the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat received the keys to the cities of New York City, New Orleans, Oakland, Kyoto, Detroit, Miami Beach, Miami, and Quito, as well as numerous resolutions and proclamations from state and federal government officials in the US. http://prem-rawat.org/ Who is the author of the material on prem-rawat.org? Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) The author is The Prem Rawat Foundation, the official website of that organization (see copyright notice bottom right). Added per WP:SELFQUEST ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) So we don't know who actually wrote it? This material appears to violate WP:SELFQUEST because it is unduly self-serving and because there is reasonable doubt about who authored it. Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? If not I think it's better left out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 17 June 2008 (a) There is no reasonable doubt that this is an official website, same as if you would quote from a page at www.apple.com. (b) It is not unduly self-serving, unless you think that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving . This material is entirely appropriate for a biographical article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Making claims of awards and honors is self-serving. We don't know who the author is. It's not even clear what relationship Rawat has to TPRF, which would mean that if it's not his website then we can't use it at all. The TPRF website may be a usable as a source for itself, the article about that organization, but it's not Rawat's website so it can't be used about him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC) That argument is specious. Prem Rawat is the founder of that charitable organization, which carries his name. Most definitively usable material. As for your opinion that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving, that is simply incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC) If claiming to have received an honor isn't self-serving then please explain what is. As for using TPRF for Rawat, I don't see his name on the list of board members so his actual connection to the foundation isn't clear. We don't know the author of the material. I think it's unusable for this BLP, which requires the highest standards of sourcing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC) It could not be clearer. The TPRF site clearly credits him with inspiring their work and for founding the organisation (The Foundation, which he founded, provides nutritious food and clean water... etc.) It is getting harder to keep patience with your stubborn mean-spiritedness. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Without sounding too sarcastic, it seem that highest standard of sourcing only applies for material that is somewhat positive. In any case, a "sef-serving" statement would be "Mr. XYZ is the most accomplished guitar player in the world" in the article about Jeff Beck, sourced to his site. The connection may not be clear to you, but he is the founder of the foundation as outlined in their site. Many founders of charities do not sit in the boards, so that should not be a problem. I placed a generic question at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#WP:SELFQUEST ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (outdent) Jossi your argument is absurd. If Rawat actually founded TPRF – there is no public documentation to show that he did – but even if he did, TPRF would not be cast in some proprietary mould where it could speak as if it were Prem Rawat in person. TPRF is a public foundation not a representative of Rawat, therefore anything on TPRF can not be regarded as Rawat WP:SELFQUEST. The judgement then is, whether TPRF is an acceptable source for what is otherwise a claim unsupported by any independent source. It hardly seems so. If TPRF were a Private Trust or even a for profit corporation where Rawat was identified as a beneficiary or major shareholder, then WP:SELFQUEST might apply, as it would if Rawat was a board member at TPRF, other public charity or for profit corporation, as it is none of these circumstances apply. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I think your argument is absurd, and specious to boot. WP:SELFQUEST does not apply here, as that section of the policyt page refers to "unduly self-serving" and I cannot see how this would apply to a Freedom of the City award. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) The Keys website statistics Actual source states As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years. The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period. Proposed text states In 2002, Prem Rawat established The Keys, a new DVD-based system for describing his message and teaching the Knowledge techniques. According to the Keys website 7 since the Keys inception, 365,237 people have been taught the techniques of Knowledge. Key 6 (the Knowledge Session) has been shown in 67 countries in 68 languages (May 2008). 1. The source says ‘Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years.’ Yet the Keys were only established in 2002 ? 2. The statement that “The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period.” is of dubious value – a similar statement might be: the earth has seven continents. 6 billion humans live on these continents. The fact that one of those continents has only a few hundred people temporarily encamped upon it devalues the construction of “6 billion humans live on these continents”. because it suggests a possibility of millions of people living on every continent. We cannot know because the Rawat movement will not say, but with a concentration of his existing following being in India, the probability is that the vast majority of these claimed 365,237 people who’ve watched a video (is watching a video in itself something significant ?) live in India. Whether 360,000 Indians watching a video is or is not significant, the casting of a particular majority in the role of the whole, would be not encyclopaedic and there is no way to know that is not what the quoted statistics are doing. Given that the source is merely a self promotion on/by a website whose ownership is obscure, how on earth can this be considered trustworthy ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) What kind of arguments are these? All it is said there is that since the inception of Key Six, which is the way people are taught the techniques of Knowledge since the year 2000 (I do not know where the year 2002 comes from, not from that source certainly), 365,237 people have been taught the techniques of Knowledge, and that these sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries. If these people are Indians or Anglo-Saxon, who cares? Unless there is a certain bias here that Indians are second-class human beings, I do not see why that question is even raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi I do hope that you are not intending to inpute Racist intent on my part, I said nothing about race so I am unclear why you refer to such notions. The operation of Rawat's promotion happens on nationally distinct terms - India having a different organisational structure than the US for example. Further there is sound data that Rawat's following in India has historically far exceeded that in any other country, and the way in which which thekeys are promoted there is acknowledged by the country specific promoter to be different than, for example the US. The use of statistics in an encyclopaedia should make details clearer, not obfuscate them.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) People are people are people. No one other than you have made an argument for discriminating these numbers. The Keys site is available to anyone, and anyone can register. They do not make any distinction about people's country of origin (why should they?). So, if what your wrote could be construed as racist, do not blame in on me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Ownership is obscure? See [38] and this [39] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC) This is the full text in that page: 'How do I ask for Knowledge? When you have watched the first five Keys, and if you are clear that this is what you would like, you may send a request to Maharaji to be taught the techniques of Knowledge. Information on how to do this will be provided with Key Five. You will receive an invitation to attend a special session where Key Six will be shown. In Key Six, Maharaji teaches the techniques of Knowledge through a video presentation. These sessions are held regularly in many locations around the world. As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years. The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Which page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I support the inclusion of the first sentence: "As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years." and agree with Jossi that this information on the official website is no less credible than (say) Apple announcing 10 Million iPhone sales. However I don't support the 'available in 68 languages' as this is just marketing; it is not the availability of this information that is statistically notable, but the number of people choosing to participate. If we can just keep to the facts, then this provides the reader with an indicator of Rawat's current popularity, and provides balance to the criticism without being too promotional (IMO).Savlonn (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I agree about the 68 languages. I left it off my suggested addition. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Even if only 20 people attended in Tuvalu, the fact that these sessions were arranged and went ahead in 67 countries is significant. Savlonn (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Added As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years, and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) To be NPOV that should be attributed to the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) According this article as it stands, The Keys weren't even produced by Prem Rawat until 2005. How does that consititute 8 years of "Key 6?" Additionally, If there's to be a link to The Keys website in this article, it should be noted that anyone who accesses The Keys website, and decides to register, they must agree to these terms and conditions, which if violated, do not hold a registrant harmless from legal action against them by this NRM and one wonders if permission from TPRF needs to be obtained prior to using any of its website material here: Terms and Conditions I understand that the material on this website is private and proprietary, through copyright and/or common law rights, belonging to The Prem Rawat Foundation ("TPRF") and its agents and assigns. I understand and agree that by accessing this material I am entering an agreement that I will not copy, redistribute, or publicly display anything on this website or on any discs obtained through this website. I also understand and agree that my purpose for accessing this website and any related material is limited solely to my personal interest in Maharaji’s Knowledge, and by agreeing, I expressly waive any rights I may believe I have in terms of creating commentary, research, or any other “fair use” purposes. I also agree that, should my interest in learning the techniques of Knowledge change at any time, this agreement is perpetual in length, and that upon such change, I will return any such material to The Prem Rawat Foundation. I understand that by agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, I will be given a password and user ID, which I agree not to disclose to any third person for any reason. I understand that the practice of Knowledge does not prevent, cure, or treat any medical or mental illness and does not prevent the recurrence of any illness once it has been treated. I understand that some unresolved mental and emotional health problems may interfere with the ability to make choices related to asking for, practicing, and enjoying Knowledge. As far as I am aware, I am free from any conditions that would impair my ability to ask for, practice, and enjoy Knowledge. I agree to the Terms and Conditions, and that I am being given permission to access the material contained (on this website), but that this permission can be revoked. TPRF reserves the right to issue/delete Personal Access Numbers and access to this website at its own discretion and without notice. I also understand that if I breach this agreement, I may face legal penalties and agree that such legal disputes can be resolved in the Courts of the State of California. I also understand that if I breach the Terms and Conditions, I may be liable for damages and attorneys fees. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) That is a fair point Sylvie. We may need to get permission from TPRF before adding any of this to Wikipedia. As background, the video Knowledge Session was actually produced in around 1999, and started to be used then. It was renamed Key 6 in around 2005 when the other Keys (1 - 5) were produced to accompany it, but it is the same video. The 356 000 figure appears to be the total since 2000. The Knowledge preparation process is far greater than "just watching a video." There was always a preparatory program and now around 50 hours of material in Keys 1 - 5 have to be viewed before Key 6. This should be easily confirmable by TPRF, bearing in mind the above. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The subject being talked above is accessible without the need for any login (its a https page though). Extracting content that may otherwise be present on login would cause trouble. This may not. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC) What happened to Jossi's reply? It's misleading for the Key's website to now call the 1999 Knowledge Session DVD "Key 6" when it wasn't called "Key 6" until 2005. That alone blurs the statistic enough to exclude it from the article. If TPRF and Rawat wanted to be clearer, they should write the statement more clearly. This is an encyclopedia, not a guessing game, plus TPRF's "The Keys" website is a primary source. Are there any other sources for this statistical information? I also wanted to point out the extremely unusual criteria for someone wanting to register on The Keys website (which has nothing in common with any other website I've ever come across on the interent, especially Microsoft Corp., which Jossi refered to in his now-deleted post to me here), because of it's disclaimer about mental health. That's just downright peculiar, imo. I think readers should be informed that if they do want to register at that website that they should be warned that they're going to be required to sign-off on issues concerning their mental health, that is, if Wikipedia is going to allow Prem Rawat to promote The Keys here. Children and young adults do read this website. Additionally, out of 6 billion people in the world, 300K people isn't even worth a mention. It doesn't even register as a percentage on my calculator. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) We are only reporting what that website say, no more, no less. As for the percentage argument, we are reporting other numbers as well, so what is the problem? As for the "registration" issue you are raising here, it does no apply as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Is the website a reliable source? It seems odd to attribute information to an anonymous website. At the the TPRF has a board of directors. Who is in charge of the "Keys" website? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Anonymous? How can you call a website that is (per the links provided e.g. [40] and this [41]) the property of the Prem Rawat Foundation, a legal entity registered in the US, to be "anonymous"? Would you say that Apple.com, or www.friendsofwfp.org are also "anonymous"? I think that your later arguments are becoming quite strange, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) It it's owned by the TPRF then the assertions should be attributed to the TPRF. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC) That's easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Our article Teachings of Prem Rawat says: In 2005, Prem Rawat introduced "The Keys", a program of five DVD's which prepare the student for receiving Knowledge. Is that inaccurate? It's unsourced, so shall we delete it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Apple analogy: The analogy with Apple is only of very limited scope. Apple Corp. is regulated by Governments around the globe, it has to produce audited accounts which relate directly to its products and it is subject to intense analysis by economists, traders and journalists, further its products are subject to strict technical regulation, all of which provides an intense oversight of the validity of any claim made by Apple. In contrast thekeys process is of unclear ownership, there is assertion of copyright by TPRF, but TPRF does not adopt responsibility for the quality of the product/service, nor does it claim to be the provider of the product/service, even in the US, let alone the other 67 countries where TPRF has no legal standing. The analogy with Apple might be argued to extend to a ‘reseller’ arrangement, however in the case of Apple trading data would be available to verify any claims that Apple made about units sold in Tuvalu or Tiblisi. No such supporting data exists for the claims made by TPRF, which frankly could make up any numbers it wants and no one would have any reference point to judge their validity.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Can we use caveats such as 'claimed' and 'unverified' to convey that this is unaudited information? I still think this is notable information, and I haven't seen any claims that it is grossly inaccurate or fabricated; only that it is unverified and from a primary source. I am applying the same principle here as with criticism; that we use the best source available as long as it meets qualifying criteria, even if it isn't an ideal source from an independent 3rd party. In this case, the website appears to be the only source for this material. Savlonn (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) However, having just written the above, I now have one concern that I didn't consider when I earlier made my case to support the inclusion of this material. The website states exactly' that 365,237 people attended. This implies that they must have a rigorous method for assuring the accuracy of this data to 6 decimals. Therefore, it should be their prerogative to demonstrate how they came to such an exact number. If the website had claimed that 'more than' or 'approximately' 350,000 people had attended, then this wouldn't be a problem. We can't generalize; that would be OR, so we have to take that exact number or leave it out. We can't put that number in the article with its implication of great confidence/accuracy without understanding how the confidence in that number was derived. Savlonn (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) We could place an inquire in their ticketing system if this need clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If people are asked to register to get The Keys and have to send a request to participate ion a Key Six session as desc ribed in that page, there must be very easy to keep stats for attendance. I do not see why this would be such a big deal or difficult to tally. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Chronological inconsistency in ownership, authorship and liability for thekeys and thekeys promotional material - 1. thekeys Key6 video is said to date from 1999/2000 2. the website maharaji.net was registered August 1998 (current registration is listed with TPRF) [42] 3. TPRF was created in 2002 Given that the Key6 video is a product that existed at least two years before the creation of TPRF and that the maharji.net website was created four year before TPRF, the question of ownership is not clear. Beyond an assertion of copyright no statement appears on either the TPRF or maharji.net websites which explains what relationship there is between TPRF and a) the authors/creators of thekeys and b) the authors/collectors of data about how thekeys are used by third parties. Even if it is concluded on the basis of copyright assertion that TPRF is the publisher/operator of the thekeys process, there is no source which links ownership of the operation of thekeys (and the collection of statistics) by third parties. Without clear ownership of the data TPRF can not be considered a reputable source.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Use of Key6. There cannot be a direct linkage between "taught Knowledge" and the viewing of the Key6 video, it has been widely used also for what Rawat calles 'Knowledge Reviews' - existing followers getting an update in case they forgot something. The proposal 2 text is misleading in that it could be seen as suggesting that 365,237 have viewed the Key6 video as an 'initiation' - that is not what the source says.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I mean, this is unbelievable... why in the earth some people here get so worked up for such a simple statement and a few numbers? The text there is very clear: It states that over the last 8 years a number of people attended the Key Six session. If someone has questions about what does that mean, we could simply ask a question in their support ticket system. For me, it is very clear, 300K+ people have received the techniques of Knowledge in the last eight years. What is the big deal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The 'Big Deal' is not that 300K+ people have attended, but the claim that 365,237 have attended as of a particular date. Using this precise number has a qualitative as well as quantitative implication; it implies "We have have very accurate information as to exactly how many people have attended, so you can trust this number". They didn't have a little * disclaimer next to the number with some fine print referring to the number the tickets allocated in their system. In fact, they don't refer to the number of tickets allocated, but actual attendance. Effectively, publishing such a precise number has raised the bar for proving the validity of this information to support the implied claim of high quality. The analogy is quoting a statement that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s, vs quoting a statement that the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/s. The first quote could probably stand on its own, but the 2nd is a much higher quality claim and would require a reference to the source of this claim. Maybe we can compromise by putting a general statement in the article body, such as "The official Prem Rawat web site claims that a large number of people have received 'The Knowledge' in recent years through global 'Six Keys' sessions" and then reference the statistical claim from the website in the reference section? Savlonn (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) "large" is an ambiguous statement, when we have detailed numbers. As I said, we can simply make an inquiry and find out, but even without it, the fact that they quote a specific number is significant as of itself. What we could do is to say "more than 300,00 people" and that would be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, "large" doesn't cut it at all, and just putting the given number in as a reference isn't quite honest. To some, 57 might be "large," and most would not check the refs. I think that TPRF's giving the number to 6 significant figures does indeed imply that they have very good data. It is their organisation, and unless we have good reason to doubt their methods, I believe we can accept their figures and the article should show them. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Also something like "300,000 plus" or "large number" looks more of advertisement/emphasis on popularity. Speaking to the numbers would be a a direct point without making judgements about them. --Taxed123 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Media perceptions I suggest that Downton summarized the Millennium press conference best: "Representatives of the press became quite hostile to the guru in his first press conference, charging that his answers to their questions were flippant and arrogant." Also, "...representataive of the media were angered, not impressed, by what they saw and heard." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) In a December 1973 article for the New York Review of Books, Francine du Plessix Gray names several reporters that attended the Millennium '73 event: Ken Kelley covering the events for Ramparts, Marjoe Gortner for Oui, and Paul Krassner for The Realist.[68] I don't think we need to attribute a factual statement like this, and there are several sources that mention various people covering the event. The list of notables attending includes Robert Scheer James Downton Jerry Rubin Paul Krassner Abbie Hoffman Robert Greenfield Annie Leibowitz Marilyn Webb Marjoe Gortner Michael Shamberg Nicholas von Hoffman Bob Larson Loudon Wainwright III Kerry Fitzgerald John Sinclair (poet) Jeff Nightbyrd We don't need to list them all, of course, but the existing text doesn't summarize the information well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Tx for the suggestions: Re. "hostile": both Pilzaryk and Levine mention "hostility": Pilzaryk for youth culture press (in general), Levine for Rawat (at the M'73 press conference). Though Downton's summary seem adequate, I don't see what it would add. Also, if taking the context, the Rawat-Media situation was already "stressed" before the press conference began (from both sides, e.g. the Halley pie incident - Halley was a reporter - and the PR staff meeting): Downton's "became quite hostile" as if the M'73 press conference was the start doesn't do justice to the situation imho. Re. "flippant": it is very prominent in the Newsweek correspondent's intervention, as filmed in Lord of the Universe. I tried to avoid peacock terms, if the same message can be transferred without them. For me using "flippant" would be OK though, just trying to be careful. Re. "angered": Well, some probably were. The Newsweek correspondent in the end says he wasn't. So let's not generalise. Re. which ones to name: I'd only name media people in the section that is about Rawat and the media. It was a bit "wrapped" in the du Plessix Gray quote, resulting from a discussion we had on another page: quoting an acceptable secondary source is OK, we may assume that author selected those most notable for the context. Don't let that stop you from having a go, based on the sources you think most significant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC) This edit is mainly OR, the source provided not supporting that text. If proposals are to be taken seriously, the text needs to stay close to the sources, and the sources impeccable. Otherwise, what is the point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I see a lot of sources in that paragraph. What material is original research? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC) This: 'Tensions with the press were far from over when they started reporting about the financial deficit of Millennium 73, the family rift, Rawat's marriage, the Malibu estate and heliport, and the defection of significant adherents over the next few years. By the early 1980s the popular press largely ignored Rawat and his movement The source provided for all that text is Ref #22 (Melton) which does not contain any of that text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Moving forward Are we in an impasse? Are there any proposals to try and bridge the differences between the different proposals on the table? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I would hope not. Impasse isn't a word I like too much ;). I think there is an ability to reach a compromise of sorts. Let's see if something can be reached. I notice that the mediation hasn't been as active as of recent, this is probably my fault, due to the recent "fiasco" with me. If that's the case, I apologise. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) This propsoal is too large, with too many different revisions and additions being proposed at once. I suggest working on smaller pieces. It'd be much easier to find agreement on one paragraph then on a dozen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Agreed this section is too big to do as one item. The various debates for different paragraphs would be a bit chaotic IMO. I am agnostic as to doing them one section at a time, or splitting each paragraph into separate sandbox discussions. (back in 10 days - going to Tenerife :-)Savlonn (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 - Media perceptions ... includes material that it is already being discussed for inclusion in other proposals, or already included in other sections of the article itself. This subsection, as far as I can gather from discussions in other proposals, is no longer viable as presented on this draft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I suggest creating proposals for each subsection separately. Six at once is too many to reach consensus. It's easier to deal with them one at a time. Since there is little or no overlap, there's no need to edit them all together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Started User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 7

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal 7.1 Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle. I've prepared and posted a draft. Almost all of the sources used in it are at Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. The material contains a review of the main issues raised in countless articles, especially concerning cars, planes, and real estate. His mother is the only named critic. There are two quotes from Rawat, one from a follower, and one from a spokesman. We could shorten it by getting rid of the four short quotes but I think they add context. Which reminds me, I can't find the source for Indian gurus being supported in luxury. I know I've seen it recently. Can anyone help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (a) celebrityaircraft.com is not a RS; (b) Over quoting Levine is unacceptable; (c) Indian gurus being supported in luxury I don't know where you got that from; (d) Hunt does not speak of "ostentatious opulence", that is Levine again; (e) the quotes are picked up for effect; (f) missing important context about many of these cars being gifts; (g) Don't get me started on Larson as a source. In summary: A shorter, tighter sentence that is fully attributed may work, as it stands it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A) That was just for convenience. There appear to be other sources for the private jets. B) Overquoting? For one thing, they're two different Levines. Regardless of that, I'm not sure I've ever heard of an objection to "over quoting" from a source. C) It'll show up. I know I've seen it and I recall we all discussed it some time back. D) Yes, that's from Levine. So? It's cited. E) The quotes are picked to be informative and give context. F) I have sources for the London Rolls and the Masaerati being gifts. Do you have sources for any others? Maybe the simplest thing would be to tack on, "...some of which were gifts." G) Larson agrees with Downton that Rawat's father was wealthy. Larson qualifies as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (a) Which other sources?; (b) if there are different "Levines" please provide full sources; (c) We shall see if it does; (d) that Levine is not a "scholar", he is a psychiatrist; (e) The quotes are picked up for effect and not "informative" whatsoever; (f) "some of which were gifts" it is not enough; (g) Larson's book is written from a Christian perspective attacking anything that is not Christian. If used at all, it need full attribution and context. The book is described as "This volume helps address tough questions from a biblical perspective." In the back cover: "Bob Larson analyzes the history, practices, and appeal of each movement and evaluates its belief system from a Christian perspective using biblical criteria." I also don't see anything in Larson's about "Rawat father being wealthy"≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A) Just Google "rawat" and "gulfstream". For example, "Peace at a price", Hedley Thomas, The Courier-Mail, April 24, 2004. B) As noted the full citations are in the article already, or in the page of sources. C) Yes. I think it was Rumiton who commented again recently about it, saying that it was important context. D) Levine is a "Professor of Clinical Psychiatry".[43] Professor = scholar. E) We can remove the quotes, but then we lose context and points of view. I thought editors wanted more context for this material, not less. F) What sources do you have for the gifts? As I already wrote, I only know of sources for two of the cars being gifts. Do you want to go into detail and say which were gifts? G) Larson talks about Hans Ji on page 205, at the bottom of the page. Since he agrees with Downton, and since no other sources dispute the wealth, I don't see what the problem is. Other editors, perhaps Rumiton or Momento, thought it important to say that Rawat came from wealth, to show that he had was continuing a lifestyle in which he'd been raised. Christian writers are reliable sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Re C) – "Maharaj Ji was the youngest of four sons of Sri Hans Ji, and even as a young child participated with his family in their public religious programs. Given this status, he was accorded a great deal of attention from his father's devotees and lived in luxury.13" Galanter 1989 p21 [44]; there appears to be a footnote too ("13"), of which the text is not given at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Galanter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Also re C - "...according to Khalid Shah, a correspondent for the Illustrated Weekly of India: '...He is a member of the highest Brahmin caste. His family is quite wealthy.'" (Current Biography Yearbook, 1974 p. 255). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A great deal of attention is correct by his father devotees is correct, and the fact that Rawat is from the Rajputs is also correct (but not a Brhamin caste). As for being "wealthy" it is very doubtful that his father was such. In any case, the sentence you have there is not what the sources say. As for the other comments above, please provide sources and I will be glad to discuss them. I do not see page 205 of Larson, please provide the text in that page. Yes, Christian writers can be used, but context and attribution is imperative. As for Levine, he is not a "scholar", regardless how you look at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The "piloting a Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream" can be added in the section about his flying interests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) What's the source for Rawat's Rajput lineage? As for the father's wealth, we have reliable sources that say he was wealthy and that Rawat was raised in luxury. Are there any sources to the contrary? Perhaps folks here aren't familiar with Harvard system of citing sources. The references can be found in Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle or Prem Rawat#References. I'm not sure I understand what Jossi means by "I do not see page 205 of Larson". It's the first page of his chapter on "Guru Maharaj Ji" and immediately follows page 204. Saul V. Levine is indeed a scholar. He is employed as a scholar, has written as a scholar, and has been cited as a scholar. On what grounds would someone say that he isn't a scholar? As for aviation interrests, it'd make more sense to move that miscellaneous material up here, and handle it all together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I've added the pilots license info from the "aviaiton interests" section to consolidate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Harvard is not the style of citing we are using. Please add the full sources as we have done on other proposals so that I can check these sources. I do not have access to page 205 of Larson, the Google Book version has page 148-150, so I am asking to see what he wrote n whatever edition you have. Interesting how do you want to call Levine a scholar, but for other authors we describe them as "Sociologist", "Professor of Religion", etc. In any case, the viewpoints of Hunt, Levine, Galanter, Maeve, etc can all be summarized for NPOV. The flying of Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream does not belong here, it belongs to the Aviation interest section. As for the Rajput lineage of the Rawat family, you have Cagan and McKean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) If Jossi is finding it hard to decipher the Harvard system I'd be more than happy to post the full set of references on this page so that they aren't a source of confusion. If Joss had only said he didn't have access to Larson I would have provided the quote initially. In the edition I have he writes Guru Maharaj Ji owes the founding of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) to his wealthy, revered father... Again I ask for any source which disputes this. The flying of planes is much more appropriate here, when he started to fly, then in a "miscellaneous" section stuck on the end of the article. The invention of the watch doesn't appear to be notable enough to mention at all. As for Cagan, we can't use that book because the caste is disputed. McKean is reliable, but still contradicts our other source. I think that simply saying "high caste" covers both Brahmin and Rajput casts, so is accurate without getting into the dispute. If Jossi thinks that the viewpoints of every scholar available should be summarized this material will be much longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I object to the undue weight, bias, lack of fairness and irrelevance of this proposal.Momento (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) How much weight do you think it deserves, and why? What part of this is unfair? How is it irrelevant to the life of Prem Rawat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) By all means let us say that he is rich and received (perhaps still receives) donations that enabled him to live like a millionaire (we are saying that already), that he had a Rolls-Royce and other luxury vehicles, but this listing of the all-time contents of his garage is way over the top. As I said elsewhere, we don't list P. Diddy's or Snoop Dogg's cars either, and for a good reason – their notability is not based on their car collections (even though their cars have been mentioned in the media, much as in the present case). (And would there be an objection to naming the proposals within a proposal "drafts"?) Jayen466 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that unfair is the right word, but it sounds envious. Like we're really bothered that he has all those cars. That's the sort of thing I expect to read in a tabloid, but not in an encyclopedia. Jayen466 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) How many press conferences have P. Diddy held that revolved around their cars? How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? The cases aren't analogous. Some people end up being notable for things that are ignored in other people. It's not for us to go back and redo history to make it how we think it should have gone. But as a compromise I'm willing ti cut the list down tothe cars most frequently mentioned. And I like the "drafts" idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? Dozens, if not hundreds of times. [45] [46] Plus I believe there has been the odd press conference about a badly parked Ferrari. ;-) Jayen466 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Different people are notable for differnt things. The article on Sean Combs devotes a paragraph to his wardrobe, because that's an important part of his public image and notability. Likewise, this subject is well-known for his cars, and hardly a single journalist from the period fails to mention them in some way. Per our discussion here I've trimmed the list to the most frequently mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I might add that most of the hits from that search are for articles about the Bently that just mention an owner, rather than articles about Diddy/Combs that make a big deal about his cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That was only the Bentley. There is also the Maybach, Ferrari and his Gulfstream jet. [47] [48] :-) Jayen466 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) <outdent>I think this is an accurate depiction of Rawat's life and how it has been viewed by scholars and media alike. His possesion of luxury vehicles is noteworthy because he's a relgious leader in the U.S., not a celeb. The controversy is that he obtained his wealth from his followers. He was supported to a large extent through donations to DLM, which was a non-profit church in the United States that benefitted from that status on the U.S. taxpayers dime. That's what makes it extremely noteworthy. Rawat espcially stood out during the initial acquisition of his wealth in the 1970s. This isn't analagous to celebrities that have lots of cars -- they're expected to have a lot of luxury cars, for crying out loud. See Jay Leno. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat. Here's one way Prem Rawat explained being rich in 1995 at an event in Long Beach, California. Read this and tell me it's not controversial and shouldn't be treated that way!! "You know some people don't like rich people. They have this idea or that idea of what it is to be rich. But they really don't know. It's not easy to be rich. It isn't. Once you've made your first million, you need another to protect it. Then you have two million, and you'll need another two million to protect those two million. Then you'll have four million and you'll need another four million to protect those four million, and then you'll have eight million. Of course then you'll need another 8 million to protect those eight million and then you'll have 16 million... it isn't easy, it's not what you think." -- Prem Rawat Sylviecyn (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) LOL! As if religious leaders in the US are not wealthy! And I thought you lived in the US. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat is your own opinion, which you are entitled of course, but please spare us claiming your opinion being any other than just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) And btw, that quote is spot on, 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That's a nice quote, but it's too long for the article. I think the other quoke from Rawat, about not really living in luxury, conveys some of the same viewpoint more briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That is a good quote. I don't see it as controversial, Sylvie, to me it is an accurate description of the human dilemma posed by personal wealth. But as far as I know, quotes from subjects are not admissible in a bio due to the ease with which they can be taken out of context. Not that anyone here would do that. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I'd say: no quotes, please, unless we want to contemplate yet-another-quote war as in the past. Not needed whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) For comparison, I've posted P7.2 which is identicial to P7.1 but with the quotes deleted. I think P7.1 is better, but it's easier to compare this way. Any other objections to P7.1/7,2? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Sources missing; and does not address other concerns already expressed. As I said, I am working on an alternative version, pls have some patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Which concerns still need to be addressed? Please specify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) The ones I have listed in this thread. You may think you have answered to these, but I am not satisfied with your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~ Which issues aren't you satisfied with? I'm not a mind reader. Please specify so that they can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Proposal 7.X I will work on an alternative proposal, as I am not confident that proposal 7.1 can be fixed. I will incorporate as many sources used there, add others and present the material in a better and more neutral manner. It may take me a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Every point that you've raised about 7.1 has been addressed. What need is there for a different proposal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) No, It has not, Will. I will give it a go, and I am confident it will be a good proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) What issues haven't been addressed in 7.1? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I will address these in a new proposal, which I am working on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 I've posted Draft 3. It adds back the quote from the follower, and summarizes one of the quotes of Rawat that is frequently cited. It incorporate the issues covered by the Hunt quote from the "Westernization" section (except for the follower's experience part, which is probably better placed in some other context). It adds the complaints from the former officials, Mishler and Garson. It contextualizes the Jensen purchase, which was noted by the press. I've also translated most of the refs, per Jossi's request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) We are having the discussion about this elsewhere. Splitting the discussion is not useful. The proposals you are making are at odds with these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) This discussion is over specific text. The other discussion is over the general approach to the issue. It's been running for several weeks. Without actual text to talk about that discussion seems to have wondered off track. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) This "specific text" is being thoroughly challenged in that discussion. The proposals made there are about as specific as it gets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) "... Two Cessna airplanes were obtained for Rawat's use and he got his pilot's license in 1973. ..." – seems quite young for a license so a citation would be in order here I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I'm looking for that source now. I recall reading that he got his license while in India for a prolonged stay. That'd be either early '73 or mid-1975. We can omit the exact date if we can't find the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) This isn't the source that I recall, but it's a Washington Post article from September 1971, when the subject was reportedly 13 years old: Someone says the guru needs only seven more hours flying time to get his pilot's license. "The first landing he ever made was perfect." "I should hope so," says the woman, who travels with Toomey. I believe that age limits are different for flying than for driving. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I checked and the current laws in both the U.S. and India set a minimum age of 16 to recieve a license. But I don't think there's a limit on training. It's also possible that rules have changed, or aren't enforced. I think it's clear that he had his first license by the mid-1970s. Since the material is proposed tp be placed in the chronological section, we can omit the exact date. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) FYI, I've made quite a few changes in resonse to the input - including shortening the list of cars, giving more space to the view of followers, and rewriting the lead sentence. I'm still fleshing out all of the sources. Some things are so widely reported that many sources are available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC) What a mishmash, WP:OR and not-neutral paragraph. If you think this is useful at all, you are mistaken. This is just a mishmash of sources carefully selected for effect, WP:V works alongside NPOV, and does not override it: A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) What original research? Virtually every assrtion is cited once or twice, and those that aren't can be. What specific objections do you have? Is there any particular sentence or phrase that's problematic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) As I said, it is a mishmash of materials, rendered to present a specific viewpoint. Rather that making such mishmash and carefully use of selected quotes for effect, we ought to use neutral summaries that already have been made by scholars that have studied the subject ((such as Bromley, Hunt, for exampl) which places the material in the correct context. This s a BLP and not a piece of "journalism" better suited for People Magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC) This draft does use Bromley and Hunt. Do you have objections to any particular sentence or phrase? Which part is original research? What context needs to be added, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) My contention is that all of that is already summarized in the article, as per Jaen's arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You're making all kinds of contentions but not clearly explaining any of them. Please say what is OR in this text. Also, please point to the material that isn't NPOV. As for being covered elsewhere, see the top note, which explains how various material in the article is brought together in one place, and covered in one logical package. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and you should not use these sources to make a cocktail of quotes of your chosing to assert your viewpoints. That is WP:SYN and most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) None of the sources used are tabloids. Do you have any specific issues, or is it OK to post as it is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Don't play games with me, Will. I am too old for these games. This piece which you have put together by careful selection of quotes for best effect, as if this was a second-rate magazine, is not a happening thing as far as I am concerned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) If you want to stop playing games then please explain your list of complaints, as I've requested several times. Start with pointing out where the original research is. Then show where the NPOV is violated. You make claims but you can't seem to actually point to any real problem with the text. Without pointing out and explaining specific concerns your complaints are just "I don't like it." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 Essentially Will's draft 3, with cpedit, tweaks, sources tunings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That looks OK to me. I wonder if we could integrate the last part of this sentence into the main paragraph? When former officials of Rawat's organisations voiced their criticism in the aftermath of the Jonestown drama in the late 1970s they didn't limit themselves to the movement, but included its leader in their comments,[74] for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17] It's directly related to this topic. To some extent it's already covered, but if we can cover it fully here then we can delete it from the "Critical viewpoints" section and avoid duplication. It would also address jayen and Jossi's concern that this material is already covered elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I object to Proposal 7 when several other proposals have not been completed.Momento (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) That's not much of a reason. It doesn't make sense to hold up editing the entire topic because of one or two disagreements. If you're not interested in this proposal you don't have to participate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This topic is already covered in the article. See previous and current discussions, which you somehow have ignored in these "proposals". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The topic isn't covered fully. It was a source of "considerable controversy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This is a moot point. You cannot only propose and create "negative" material to add to this article. It is already unbalanced, particularly with '70s newspaper sources.Momento (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This is an important topic in the life of the subject. It was the source of "considerable controversy". As for the focus on the 1970s, it was the time of the subject's greatest prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Greatest media prominence perhaps but this is an encyclopedia not a media summmary. And again, you cannot just include only the material you like and ignore the rest. There are other proposals needing to be completed before this..Momento (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC) How many scholarly books mention him anymore, either? It's not just the media that found him more interesting in the 1970s than in later decades. As for the other proposals, they are all independent. I recall you saying that we couldn't work on the intro until the rest of the article is finished. Now you're saying that we can't work on the rest of the article until we finish the intro. Since there are pending questions waiting at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4, you apparenlty aren't in any hurry to finish that proposal either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Jets Seeking input regarding the jets. The sources I've encountered thus far aren't too great, re. models, time, typos... Also asking myself whether there are more sources regarding DECA and whether we should mention it. DECA & 7X7 Citizendium (sourced to Cagan) [49] in 1980, Rawat obtained the use of a Boeing 707 for his work, and during 1981 flew the aircraft to South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, speaking on 120 occasions in forty cities. prem-rawat-maharaji.info and prem-rawat-bio.org In 1979 the acquisition and customization of a Boeing 707 for Prem Rawat's exclusive use became a dominant drive within the then Divine Light Mission. A 1961 vintage aircraft was acquired for US$1 million from an American Football Team. A business operation called the DECA Project and based in Florida was set up and ashram residents were drafted in to all aspects of work on the plane itself as well as project management and, most significantly - fund raising. Like other expansive projects undertaken by Rawat's followers, DECA had no beneficial impact on the Rawat movement or its participants, however DECA did provide a model for income generation which was free of the costs and other considerations of the ashram system. Although dependant on the ashrams for its existence, DECA, or at least the funding expertise that it generated, can be seen as the development which allowed Rawat to dissolve the costly ashram system in 1982 and 1983, and to still maintain an income flow to his organizations. Within the DECA facility a range of activities took place that were focussed on Prem Rawat's interests - servicing of his Rolls Royces was undertaken there. The financial structure seems to have lacked commonly expected controls and there have been accusations of inadequate and illegal work practices. Work on the Boeing 707 was completed in 1980 but the plane was never put into service for Prem Rawat and was sold to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who had it flown to Malaysia where it rapidly fell into disuse because its emissions exceeded legal limits. The DECA business sought development as a corporate jet customization operation but proved unviable and was soon sold, being renamed Aircraft Modular Products(AMP). Some of Prem Rawat's followers gained employment with AMP but the company had no other links with Rawat or his organizations. AMP prospered and was sold in 1998 by it's then owner Roger Koch for over US$ 100 million. It is unclear what happened to the receipts from the sale of the Boeing 707 and the DECA business. There appears to have been a chronic incapacity within Divine Light Mission to protect either its interests as a charity or the interests of those who voluntarily assisted it. Numerous business operations started by Prem Rawat's followers seem to have become absorbed into a quasi corporate structure ostensibly to the benefit of Divine Light Mission, only to be 'demerged' to the sole benefit of subsequent owners. Those individuals who achieved ownership of businesses started under the aegis of Divine Light Mission frequently retained close personal contact with Prem Rawat and Rawat appears to have benefited financially from those contacts. "Blinded by the Light" in Good Weekend, Sydney, Australia, August 31, 2002. Web version (PDF) at rickross.com [...] the first of many private jets [...] materialised. An early Divine 707 boasted a gold toilet, says American ex-premie Cynthia Gracie, who worked to refurbish it – “though I don’t know if it was solid or plated gold”. Bromley and Shupe 1982 Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. Gulfstream V Ex-premie.org See http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm#G5 I think it would be better to have some additional sources here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What kind of s***t is this? These are no sources that should be even mentioned here, and you know it. What are you trying to pull off here? Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 5 While I appreciate Francis' research, I think the DECA/707 material isn't sourced to the same standards as the rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the article. Mcgregor is disputed and so is Cagan, and since they're the only sources for it I think it's better to leave it out of this proposal. Bromley & Shupe is ambiguous, but we do have enough sources for him piloting a private jet. Let's leave it at that. I also moved up the clause "for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17]", which would be deleted from the last sentence in the second paragaph of the "Critical viewpoints" section. Let's keep this trim, well-sourced, and neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'm happy with that. Re. Gulfstream, I think the name of the plane should be left out too, not enough sources. Re. piloting license, this definitely still needs stronger sourcing: The only real source I could find is [50] (note: the link to the Landings website currently used directs to an obsolete page) (note 2: when he got his license is still unclear, and not verifiable from the Landings website as far as I can see) the Hinduism today article has "Flying to major cities around the world almost continually in his private jet,..." which doesn't even necessarily imply he pilots the jet. (note that this isn't a source for the Gulfstream either, certainly not Gulfstream V: the article was published more than 15 years before that one) other? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I've withdrawn Draft 5, since the changes were incorporated into Draft 4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (continued) In view of the above discussion of draft 5, and the tweaks and updates I brought to draft 4 as a consequence of that, that version (Proposal7#4) is ready to go to the Rawat article, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Not ready whatsoever. Suddenly you are so rushed? Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) We've been discussing this topic since mid-June.[51] No one is presenting specific objections to this text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No consensus Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7. There are many other areas that are more important. I can't see any discussion about it and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal.Momento (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Re. "Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7." (assuming that was a question:) yes. Read first sentence of this talk page above: "Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, I've prepared and posted a draft..." Re. "There are many other areas that are more important." – irrelevant: progress is progress. Quite naturally it is easier to make progress first on issues of limited scope. Re. "I can't see any discussion about it..." – Read the whole page, click the link in its first sentence (after which you'd need to click the "show" button here) Re. "...and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal" – not a logical conclusion of what precedes it (even if the first half of the sentence would've been correct, which it isn't - see previous point). Let the mediator decide whether there's consensus or not. Lacking specific objections I see no problem to go ahead with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that is not up to individual editors to call for consensus or lack of it. Make yourt arguments, Momento about this material, and if you want, work on an alternative proposal. My opinion is that the material does not need to be included as presented, and that it is hatchet job more suitable for a piece of yellow journalism than an encyclopedia. I am working on an alternative version and I may submit soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Working towards consensus requires that editors who have objections explain them so that the objections can be addressed. So far every specific objection has been addressed. Unless there are serious objections substantiated by solid arguments, I propose the edit be made by Steve at 00:00 UTC July 8. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The objections have been clearly stated in this and other discussion pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No they haven't. All that's been written here is that it's a mishmash which you don't like. Please give specific objections that can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Yes I have, a well as others. The fact that you ignore it is your problem and not mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I've asked you repeteadly to explain your vague complaints. You never have. Please prove me wrong by showing where you pointed out the original research, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Again, if no one can present any serious, specific objeciotns this material should be posted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Alright, just to give my thoughts here, on a few things. In response to determining consensus, I do believe at times, that while it's not up to one editor to call for consensus/lack of consensus, however commonly it is the role of an editor to determine consensus, and I feel that's my role here. Looking at the current discussion, I can see no clear consensus, so for now, I would decline on making any of the proposed edits. However, I feel it would be best if specific concerns on proposals are made, or alternative proposals are written. Additionally, my apologies for not being highly active right now, I have had a lot to deal with concerning a wikiproject which I help run, so, let's say I've just been stretched thin. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Steve, do you think it's appropriate for editors to stonewall changes by making vague objections? How do we deal with this form of obstruction? I don't see how saying things like "it's a hatchet job" brings us any closer to a consensus, and it doesn't appear intended to either. If folks aren't making good faith efforts to seek consensus then progress is impossible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I think that a deliberate attempt to stall mediation by "stonewalling" is never helpful to progress. I'm pointedly asking here, that either specific points are raised about proposals and concerns with them, or writing up a new proposal, or declaring that another proposal will be shortly written. But giving deliberately vague objections (not saying that is happening, just saying if), I find makes mediation difficult. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My specific objection is that WillBeBack and Francis have determined which Proposals are made and what direction they go in. This Proposal is concerned with finding and inserting as much negative material about Rawat luxurious lifestyle as possible. It is biased, unfair and undue weight. They are using the most extreme descriptions such as "A follower told a reporter that Rawat fired a pistol at prized vases in the backyard to "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." to paint a picture that suits their PPOV. No mention is given that the Knowledge is free, no mention is given about the free medical clinics set up, no mention that until 1974 Rawat was not in control of DLM, exceptional claims are made without exceptional sources, no mention that his mother was described as "materialistic" and that she and BBJ were largely responsible for the Millennium debt, no mention that the President of DLM was credited with asking people for trust money not Rawat,no mention that the former officials were fired and that their complaints found no support etc etc.Momento (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The need for this material was determined at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, where over 50 sources discusing this controversy have been assembled. The material is not biased, it is fair, and it does not give undue weight. The Draft 4 summarizes the views of a mahatma, two spokesmen, and a follower, plus gives two views of Rawat himself, so it amply gives the "pro" point of view. While supporters may claim that "Knowledge is free", obviously many people paid/donated a lot of money. The free medical clinics were not set up by Prem Rawat, but by the DLM, and are mentioned in that article. The role of Rawat in the DLM is not part of this topic, so I don't see why we'd include that here. The role of Mata Ji and BBJ in the Millennium festival is mentioned in that paragraph, so there's no reason to say that here. The firing of Mishler, etc. is not related to this topic and is really related to the DLM, where it's already covered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'll say again that it's unhelpful to complain about "undue weight" without saying what "due weight" would be, and why. Based both on the coverage in the press and statements in scholarly publications this is one of the most controversial aspects of the subject's life. Exactly how much weight does Momento think it should get, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Undue weight, as others have pointed out, is to give more words than a topic deserves. Rawat's luxury life was a minor point, like his height,weight and diet compared to his age, his message, his followers and his popularity. It certainly wasn't controversial to educated people and as the sources indicate, the media's interest in his wealth was over three years in the early 70s. It is already adequately covered in the article and adding more is undue weight.Momento (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Momento, how are you deciding what deserves weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Very easily. I look at the overall article and see the proportion of space given to various topics.Momento (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC) As I've said before, I'd prefer summarizing the available scholarly sources on this topic. Scholarly sources are available. We should use them. --Jayen466 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC) We are using them. Do you mean that we should use them exclusively because the New York Times, etc are not reliable sources? If that's what you mean then you need to show why sources that are accepted across Wikipedia are not good enough for this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jaen. Yes, we have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from the mainstream newspapers. Furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources). So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. I would say: (a) remove all quoted text; (b) summarize the scholarly sources first; and if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jayen and Jossi. If scholars cover the topic, and they do, they are far preferable to media repeating what each other says. One AP report gets reprinted and re-interpreted a dozen times by reporters who know nothing of the subject and people think it is important.Momento (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Are there any specific sources being used in this draft that are disputed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I have made a proposal above your comment. Do you understand the proposed approach? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) What Momento says above, about cult reporting in the media, is backed up by Bromley and Shupe, for example: Furthermore, as is so often the case, the media to some extent creates its own news ... The mechanics of news reporting virtually guarantees that once an allegation ... has been published somewhere, somewhere else another journalist researching previous articles as background for his own piece will, because of deadlines and editorial pressures, uncritically include it as fact. Thereafter the allegation takes on a well-nigh independent life of its own. — Bromley/Shupe, Strange Gods, pp. 105–106 Then there was the UN religious freedom report describing media reporting in the U.S. and elsewhere as "grotesque", "distorted", "insensitive" and "harmful". However, looking at what sections of the draft are actually cited to the press, I think no one disputes that Rawat had cars, that a Rolls Royce and an MB limousine were among them, and that there were various sports cars as well. I have no issue with that being mentioned "for colour", even if scholars don't mention it. Likewise that he had flying lessons etc. is not in doubt. We can still talk about where that should best be mentioned, but at least it seems secure information. The Rolling Stone allegation is more questionable. The relevant text appears to be the following: Occasionally, the lila take a more ominous turn. Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss premie who heads Shri Hans Films, tells about an incident that took place at the Divine Residence in Los Angeles, where he held the end of a balloon between his teeth while Bal Bhagwan Ji stood on a balcony 40 feet away and shot at it with a BB gun to test his devotion. Another premie describes the time the Guru fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." First, I doubt the status of Rolling Stone magazine as an RS here. Then I am not as dead certain as I would like to be that "the Guru" refers to Maharaji rather than his pistol-happy brother Bal Bhagwan, the subject of the previous sentence described there as "testing the premie's devotion". Thirdly, our draft states, "A follower told a reporter ..." while the article itself merely says "another premie describes" without stating if that was a first-hand report made to the reporter or hearsay that he picked up. I haven't read that particular claim elsewhere, either. In total, I think this fails WP:REDFLAG for a WP:BLP. The mention that some vehicles were "reportedly bought tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church" I find inflammatory. To me, this passage reads like <vernacular> "The cheeky bastard! He got rich off his followers, and he didn't even have to pay sales tax. Let's hate him!" </vernacular> The fact is, if the U.S. government granted the DLM tax-exempt status, and the DLM used it, they were in their rights and we shouldn't be making a fuss over it because we don't like the DLM and are looking for ammunition to shoot them and Rawat down. At least this is how I will feel about it until and unless someone can demonstrate that there are reliable sources reporting that there was an investigation which found the DLM guilty of using its tax status inappropriately. A mere allegation that came to nought is irrelevant. Sources close to his mother said that his materialistic lifestyle was one of the reasons she disowned him: My impression was that most sources are agreed that Mataji and Rawat fell out over his marriage, not about his wealthy lifestyle – bearing in mind that the rest of the "Holy Family" lived quite as wealthily as Rawat himself, and fought tooth and nail for the Indian DLM assets! I think the whole thing is just the mother getting her boot in because she was pissed off. As it stands, we are in danger of presenting her as some sort of ascetic holy woman occupying the moral and religious high ground. That's not what happened. Apart from that, I think it's a good idea to start off with the scholarly sources and discuss what press material to include after that. Jayen466 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Could you get this started with a draft on this approach, Jaen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm working on it. --Jayen466 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The current draft uses reliable sources. Are you saying that reliable sources aren't reliable? Which sources used in this draft aren't reliable, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I am not referring at all about an issue related to the WP:RS guideline, although it will not be harmful for you to re-read it. Please re-read my proposed approach and let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think that when scholars, writing in their area of expertise, conflict with non-scholars that the scholars, if writing in the mainstream, should always be given the preference. In this case none of the sources conflict with each other. I don't see anyone here asserting that the sources are incorrect. In most cases they are simply quoting the subject or his followers. It is important to give Rawat's view of the issue, as well as his followers and others. Those are significant viewpoints and must be included, per NPOV. Scholars tell us this is an important topic, and it's mentioned in even brief biographical sketches. It's given substantial treatment in the authoritative Current Biography Yearbook, I believe even greater weight than proposed here. I'm open to Momento's suggestion to include somewhere that "Knowledge is free", because I looked around and I don't see that assertion anywhere. The best place may be to the "Teachings" article, but if it makes Momento happier I wouldn't oppose adding it here too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The scholars are in obvious conflict with the reporters. Compare the language and emphasis. To scholars Rawat's wealth is a minor if interesting point. To the reporters, it's all they can see. And a significant viewpoint isn't the same as a popular one. Rawat enjoying ice cream made news around the world but is it significant, of course not. As for a reporter's expertise, Ted Morgan is quoted numerous times in this Proposal and he's the expert who had Rawat sitting on a 300 foot stage (nearly 100 feet higher than the Astrodome itself). Who's he quoting? It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff. Which is fine for the media but not for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) None of the scholars were writing biographies of the subject. They were focused on some element of the subject's movement or teachings, and just gave short biographical sketches of the subject as background, or were writing encyclopedia entries, and gave short biographical sketches of the subject as one of many. Even so, most of them mention the matter or even describe it as a matter of considerable controversy. The authoritative Current Biography Yearbook devotes as much or more attention to it as is proposed here. The subject's own PR team saw it as a part of his public personna and it affectd the financial health and leadership of the movement. It is clearly an major topic, and is rightly regard as such by scholars and journalists alike. As for the 300 feet, that's clearly a printer's error for 30 feet. The New York Times is considered an impeccable source that we have already discussed several times before, and even gone to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The subject's own PR team? Don't you mean what a reporter claims the PR team saw? 50 members? I'm not that gullible. "affected the financial health and leadership of the movement."? Compared to him splitting from his mother and getting married Rawat's wealth was, and still is, irrelevant. After all it was his followers who showered him with money and gifts. The only people who think his wealth was an issue are the media looking for sales. And this is the problem. As long as sensationalist media reports are seen as unbiased, Wikipedia's credibility will suffer.Momento (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The split with his mother was partly due, she said, to his materialistic lifestyle. When the DLM was in severe debt he kept up hislifestyle, and the movement was required to shut down many operations, drop various plans, and was notably behind on its bills for years. As is reported by the scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Any impartial person knows that Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster. And it wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets, that his mother made her claims. Further research will reveal that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans. Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM. As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess and Rawat dismantled it, much to some organizers chagrin. Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge, anything that gets in the way will be removed and that, we can see, includes his family, organizations and public opinion. As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?". He doesn't care what the NYTimes says, it's a pity that so many do.[[52]]Momento (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Please feel free to make a draft out of that. Indicating were sources would be needed (I'm not saying I doubt all of it, but we have by now a tradition of very solid sourcing for anything we want to go into the article): Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster. It wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets, that his mother made her claims. Further research will reveal that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans. Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM. As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess and Rawat dismantled it, much to some organizers chagrin. Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge, anything that gets in the way will be removed and that includes his family, organizations and public opinion. As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?". He doesn't care what the NYTimes says. (note that a YouTube link would normally not be seen as a viable reference in Wikipedia context) Note that much of the above is about intentions of the participants, which is the hard part to verify, and usually completely left out in scholarly sources (note that Schnabel, for instance, writes about that: from a scholar's perspective he doesn't care about the "intentions," as a sociological analysis is independent from that; Similarly "Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma,..."). And many of the intentions ascribed to participants above are in fact contradicted by the their own words. For instance, "Rawat dismantled [DLM], much to some organizers chagrin": Mishler's words rather seem to indicate the contrary: if he felt chagrin it was arguably regarding Rawat not doing that earlier, before they fell out. – My point is: if we are going to write about (for instance) Mishler's intentions, motivation or feelings we would (at least) be dangerously close to trespassing a few of Wikipedia's core content policies: scholarly research currently has hardly anything on the point; what more popular sources have on the point might be left out for not carrying enough weight, as an editorial discretion. What such participants said and did in public is less a problem: it is both covered by mainstream media and scholarly sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Uh? You really lost me on this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think Francis' point may have been that what Momento wrote is far from acceptable as a draft, as it makes all kinds of unverifable assertions about the intentions and feelings of persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It's not a draft, I'm just pointing out what happened to any editor that doesn't know. Most of the material can be sourced but this whole Proposal is biased and should be dropped.Momento (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This is going nowhere fast The proposal I made above, which I repeat here could be a way to move forward: We have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974, and a single clip from 1988. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from mainstream newspapers as per WP:V, and furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources). So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. My proposal is then: remove all quoted text summarize the scholarly sources first; and if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We've already done 2 and 3. If you think that this article should only be sourced from scholars then we've got a lot of cutting to do. Likewise the quotes. You haven't givien any reason why this paragraph should be treated differently from the rest of the article, or from other articles in Wikipedia. These are all excellent sources. No one has complained about single citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, I don't see where newspaper accounts are regarded by Wikipedia as primary sources. WP:OR says In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. WP:PSTS doesn't mention them. There's nothing particularly "historic" about these news sources. This appears to be another unique policy interpretation by Jossi. Jossi is alleging that newspapers are primary sources while Momento is claiming that they are tertiary sources ("It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff"). Both are wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Historical newspapers are primary sources as these have a cultural context that is implied.[53] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I expected an impasse at this point, due to the gulf between expectations of agreed sources covering Rawat's lifestyle. This is why we had the discussion off the main article sandbox page. Jossi wouldn't directly debate the sources there, but requested to so only within the context of specific edits. Thus, we have this section 7 with specific edits. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Attempting to overcome the disagreement by going back to a focus on scholarly material simply won't work, as we have already discussed the NPOV necessity to cover the broad amount of solid material from the mainstream press. We can't ignore that going back to only covering scholarly material favors PR, due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The way forward is as previously agreed: post edits here and either agree with them, or state specific reasons for disagreeing with the inclusion of source material. Where we still have an impasse, there are other options such as independent assessment of sources, or other ways forward as suggested by Steve. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I have made my arguments already, and will not accept a proposal to be shoved down my throat. In summary, here are some of my objections about the current drafts by Francis and Will Beback: Mixing apples with oranges. The fact that he took flying lessons when he was a teenager and the fact that he is now an accomplished pilot, does not have anything to do with "lifestyle" Lacks time reference. All press material is from a four year period, 1972 to 1976. Selective use of quotes. This is not a tabloid or a hatchet job but an encyclopedic article. We have excellent scholarly sources that summarize the popular views of these years, and we ought to use these. "which continued even during" - Leading, trying to make a point and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". When actually the source says that "So far as I coud see" ... and many other nuances rendering these drafts to be unusable. Jaen and I have expressed the need to better utilize the scholarly sources we have first, and if anything is missing after we do that, then look at the best sources we have from the mainstream press (Newsweek, Time, NYT, etc.) to address missing aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) , due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR That is incorrect. The scholary sources, if you take the time to read them are most definitively addressing the aspects related to PR's lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm glad that Jossi has finally, after many requests, given some specific issues about this draft. 1: The flying lessons are connected with the airplanes, awhich are very expensive items and were a part of his luxurious, vehicle-oriented lifestyle. I've also found a source in which Rawat says he learned to drive by 12. We might add that to complement the flying lessons to show that he had an early attraction to vehicles, which became a frequent metaphor in his parables, as noted by many sources. 2: The material would be placed in the "Coming of age" section, which covers that part of the 1970s. Some of the material wsa printed later, but that's the focus of the sources and the material. I don't see why further reference to dates is relevant. 3: The quotes are not selective. Rawat's statement about iving away his Rolls has been quoted frequently, perhaps as frequently as anything else he's said. The other quotes are from two spokesman, a mahatma, and a regular follower. They help give context and they give the viewpoints of followers and officials, which are significant and needed for NPOV. There are also quotes from a scholar, from his mother, and from former officials. Those are also important viewpoints. Jossi has been adamanet against having a "criticism" section, preferring instead to have critical material interwoven throughout the article. That's what this is. 4: I can rewrite that, but it's the point that Bromley and Shupe make. 5: I can rewrite that too. Please list any other specific objections so they can be addressed and so we can reach consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) So you are saying that your draft is good, well no. It is not good. Compare your mishmash with what Bromley writes. Compare the tone, the attribution, the framing, and the context, with your "draft". That marriage also brought to a climax the rift between Ji and his mother in India. In his years in the United States, Ji had begun to undergo changes she did not approve, including a fashionable hairstyle, Western clothes, a luxurious lifestyle complete with mansion and limousines, and hippie vocabulary. p. 45 As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expenses. Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' stereotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) They go way beyond what we're suggesting here. We can add his $500 a day allowance and the 747 jet if you think those are important. We can even add that they think he fits a stereotype of a cult leader, if you want. But those aren't in the proposals here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You insistence in ignoring my arguments is dully noted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not ignoring any of your arguments. Please tell me which one I haven't addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 5, redux I've created Draft 5 to address Jossi's complaints above, specifically #4 & #5. Otherwise it's the same as Draft 4. You have not addressed anything with that edit, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have. You complained about the lead sentence so I re-wrote it to be closer to the source: A source of controversy in the 1970s was Rawat's extremely affluent lifestyle, which continued during the DLM's financial difficulties. Here's the source, which you even quote above: As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle... However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition. How is that an inaccurate summary? Regarding the other point, the text now reads: Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[90]and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". So it clearly says that this was their view. How are those changes inadequate to addressing those two points? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We have: 40 sources from the press, 99% of these during three years 1972 to 1975 - Some of these 49 sources are duplicated information 18 scholarly sources most from 1976 and onward, including several from 2000 and onwards in which they address lifestyle issues How cannot be possible to summarize the scholarly sources on the subject first and see if there is anything they have missed? Why the reluctancy to address the concerns expressed by several editors? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that 99% of the sources you listed are from three years? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP? Why? Many questions and no answers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Here's a list of the sources for Draft 5: "'You're a Perfect Master'", Newsweek November 19, 1973 "An East Indian Teen-Ager Say He Is God", Ken Kelley, Vogue March 1974 "BLISSING OUT IN HOUSTON", Francine du Plessix Gray, New York Review of Books December 13, 1973 "Boy guru weds Calif. woman, 24". Associated Press, Long Beach, Calif. Indepedent, May 22, 1974 "Gifts for a Guru" in Stars and Stripes, November 15, 1972. "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975: "Investigation under way into Guru's business activities" AP Jun 24, 1974 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" in Los Angeles Times. Wednesday April 2, 1975, PART II, p. 6A "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, New York Times, December 9, 1973 "Pretty Far-Out Little Dude" Henry Allen, Washington Post, September 14, 1971 "Seventeen-year-old guru likes pizza and sports cars", DEBORAH FRAZIER UPI Santa Fe, July 13,1975 THE NEW MEXICAN. "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes "Through a 'Third Eye' Comes The Divine Light", By PHIL HASLANGER (Of The Capital Times Staff), Capital times, 2/16/73 "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston". Richard Levine, RollingStone Magazine March 14, 1974 Bromley and Shupe 1981, p. 137 Current Biography Yearbook 1974 Database of pilots Downton 1979 Foss & Larkin 1978 Hunt, Stephen. Aternative Religions. Ashgate 2003 Larson, Bob. Larson's Book of Cults. Tyndale House Publications. 1982 Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50: McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. University of Chicago Press, 1996. Melton, J. Gordon. Entry "DIVINE LIGHT MISSION", subtitle "Controversy" in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp. 144–5 TIME, Apr. 07, 1975 [3] Who is Guru Maharaj Ji Which sources do you think are unreliable or dubious, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nice list, Will, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You assert above that "some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP". Which ones? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I am referring to the list at the Lifestyle sandbox, which you are clearly using to assert prominence. My argument is that rather than pick and chose and make a judgment of what is notable in that list of sources, to rely on the scholarly sources that have studies the subject. Note that RS advises as that Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (my highlight) So, now you know what I am referring to when I am asking to focus our attention on scholars rather that journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Which scholar has studied the subject of Rawat's lifestyle? Are there any sources in Draft 5 you object to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) See Draft 6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We're talking about Draft 5 here. Are any of these sources unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Will's reply above was on top of mine, but I think its worth posting mine as well, so note this may be covering the same ground. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for the specific criticisms of these drafts - these can now be discussed. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 1. Piloting aircraft. When I first read this, the first thing that came to my mind was John Travolta. Travolta also flies his jets on legitimate business trips. However, of course the subjective, emotional association is with a wealthy lifestyle. The other association that came to me is very high intelligence, discipline and maturity to gain a commercial rating at quite a young age. I am of course being totally subjective in my analysis here, but sometimes this is a valid approach when assessing a neutral biography. If I read a proposed quotation from a source, I will ask myself (and others through this forum) a) if my subjective interpretation of the material reasonably reflects that of a typical reader and b) if this is an accurate and neutral reflection of the subject and the intention of the author of the sourced material. In this case, I believe a) it does, and b) yes. As such, I assert that that this indeed is about lifestyle and does belong here. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2. Time reference. Agreed, but not a strong point (I understand he still flies now). However, this can be mitigated by placing text in appropriate section, so it is not a valid argument to omit this material.82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 3. Selective use of quotes. Please be specific. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 4. Bias (Leading) "which continued even during" . Fair criticism - can be re-written. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5. Omission of context "as far as I could see". Well, it is clear that it is the author's opinion, but I don't have a problem with this being explicitly stated. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 6 Not complete, not polished, but just an example on how we can write about this based on the best sources we have on the subject, and without picking and choosing quotes for effect. It can be done, if editors are willing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The topic of that draft seems to be media coverage rather than Rawat. If you'd like to add that tho the media reception section it might be appropriate there. But the intent of this proposal is to address Rawat's lifestyle and the controversy and issues it raised. Draft 6 doesn't address that. Maybe it should be moved to Proposal 9. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nope. This is material that describe PR's lifestyle issues and controversy as described in the media and reported by scholarly sources. It is neutral, it leaves us to scholars to assert notability, rather than your judgment of what is. 100 %better than all previous drafts, and I am not done yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You've never said which sources are "dubious". Please explain why you consider osme of the above sources to be unsuitable for a BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This section is to discuss Draft 6. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Another specific complaint I have with this veriosn is over-attribtion. When a view that has been expressed by several sources is attributed to just one it makes it appear incorrectly that there is only one person making the assertion. For example, "...according to Melton, premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the newly married couple moved..." Since we have numerous sources for this, it's inapproproiate to attribute it to just one writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Removed over attribution on that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) And the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Opinions are always better attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) If an opinion is held by five people then it's misleading to attribute it to only one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This draft is very incomplete in that it does not give any details whatsoever about the lifestyle that caused the controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The details are well summarized by these scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The scholars mention some of the cars, homes, and planes. How come this draft only mentions one house and ignores the rest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It also totally omits the viewpoints of Rawat himself, of followers, of officials, and of former officials. those are necessary for NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Added viewpoint of a former president as reported by bu scholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This proposal is fatally biased. It starts of with a POV which it cannot escape.Momento (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It is not finished yet, Momento. I intend to add counterpoints about the Mother and other issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 7 And another draft ... points that seem important to bring out are Rawat's age at the time, plus the fact that the cars were not all amassed in one location, but reflected his travel schedule. Since he flew from place to place and couldn't very well take his car with him, it makes some kind of sense that there would be a limousine at each location. The change in lifestyle, fashion sense etc. is not yet covered. (Also note that this draft would lose the helipad controversy.) Jayen466 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) There are some good things in this version. But why are we losing the helipad controversy? That was negotiated and agreed upon previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The helipad is negotiable and can easily be put back in. Rumiton once advocated losing it, and I agreed; I didn't think it was of lasting significance to Rawat's bio. Jayen466 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Unless there are positive, explicit reasons to revisit a past agreement, I think it's a distraction from the discussion about other parts of this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) No prob, consider it reinstated, we can discuss that another time, if there is interest. Jayen466 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I always objected to the "helipad controversy" story. It has nothing to do with his notability and it is a trivial incident of no importance to the subject or our readers. It is incredible that a serious encyclopedia would devote a sentence in a BLP about a planning permission negotiation. It should be removed.Momento (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) We talked about that at great length months ago and settled it. Let's focus on this proposal here and now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, we did talk about it at length and I objected at length about that whole section and how trivial it was.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) How about including here the pilot's license, and maybe learning to drive at 12? Those seem relevant here. Otherwise I think it's pretty good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Learning to drive at 12? This is an encyclopedia, when are we going to stop the trivia and talk about what makes the subject notable - he's been a speaker and teacher about inner peace from the age of 8. Everything else is a byproduct.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) We give quite a bit of detail about the subject's youth, because his youth was notable. He frequently used cars, and to a lesser extent planes, in his parables. Learning to drive at 12 and to fly at 13 is unusual. Learning to fly is important enough that we already mention it in a "trivia" section at the end, and it's relevant to the ownership of the planes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This draft needs some more time context. It reads in the present when actually all that info about the Rolls and the Mercedes are all 1972-1974. I will not mix this stuff with the transport airline licenses that are much later in PR's life and are better presented separately as currently in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Four problems to start with: 1) the first sentence is ambiguous, making it sound like PR's wife's name is Claudia. 2) What is the significance in this paragraph of this sentence: "In July Rawat met with 8,000 followers in Copenhagen that marked his wife's first public appearance. Later that night Spanish premies serenaded the newly weds from the street below and were invited in by Marolyn for tea and cookies"? What does that have to do with his personal lifestyle? 3) The increased value of the Malibu home should be up in the paragraph where the home is talked about. 4) Jeanne Messer's quote is misleading, most boys have a fascination with technology, most do not have their own private jets and Rolls-Royces and Mercedes. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC) For my additions, I have fixed 1), the significance of 2) shows his personal lifestyle i.e. traveling to Denmark to meet followers, the number of followers, introducing his new wife to his followers, the friendliness of premies towards Rawat and his new wife and Marolyn and Rawat's reciprocation, all important indications of his lifestyle. As for 3) let's not forget that this is an encyclopedia not a real estate guide. No preference on Messner.Momento (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Point 3 was already in the proposal, I think it just makes more sense to keep the references about it together, I'm not suggesting adding additional "real estate guide" material. -- Maelefique (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Momento, I'm not sure about the last two edits; I think we're straying a little too far from the cited sources. --Jayen466 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Wait a minute. Why are people editing each other's drafts? This is listed at the top of the page for each proposal. "User should...Not change the wording of drafts, they should add a new draft with the changed wording." This is how Steve set it up. and btw, where is Steve? Is he still our mediator? Sylviecyn (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yep, I'm still the mediator. I've still been watching the mediation, but I've been doing more article work recently in preparation for an RFA, and because these articles won't improve themself :). Steve Crossin (contact) 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot.Momento (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I looked away for a few hours, and wow, how a proposal can die a flaming death...Might as well start a proposal 8 now, 7 has become PR fluffery and probably unfixable (and there's still no helipad...). -- Maelefique (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Rolled back, helipad inserted. Still timeline problems though, which will need some more thinking about. Jayen466 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) That's better. I don't seen anything to object to in this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This draft suffers from bias. You can't just ignore other important incidents of the time 74/75 i.e. Rawat was travelling, his message was spreading, he was paying for staff and travel, he was introducing his wife to his followers and the casual and friendly nature of his relationship with the premies.Momento (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This proposal doesn't cover the subject's entire life, nor everything he did in the 1972-1974 period. It covers one aspect of the subject's life. The introduction of his wife doesn't appear to have been notable. The relationship with his followers is a very different topic, I suggest starting a fresh proposal to cover that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) If this proposal is about his lifestyle then it needs to cover it all, not just money.Momento (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) "His message was spreading" is not about his lifestyle. "Introducing his wife to his followers" is more closely connected to his marriage than his lifestyle, and that's in a separate paragraph. "His relationship with the primies" is also unrelated (and not always so friendly). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) You are talking about inserting this material into the "Coming of Age" section which covers a period from Dec 73 to the 80s. These incidents occurred during that period and are therefore legitimate inclusions. You can't just say, let's only include stuff that mentions money, it is complete violation of BLP, bias, fairness, undue weight etc.Momento (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Those matters may be suitable for other places in this section, but they aren't related to this proposal. Thre is nothing about Draft 7 that violates any WP policies or guidelines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 8 Momento: Please do not edit other's proposals. I have moved your edits to Draft 8. Let Jaen work on his draft 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 9 This looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) To recap, this draft was wrttien by Jayen466. It is based on Draft 7, also written by Jayen466, except that it incorporates mostly unchanged text from the entire section so as to present the material more chronologically. I think it's fair, it atttributes opinions, it relies primarily on scholars, and it id not much longer than the existing material. Does anyone have a specific, significant objection to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yes. Jaen: Please look into incorporating other material that is missing, for example some of the sourced material in draft 10. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Also missing is the framing of the cars and airplanes to the appropriate time period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) There is an "over that period" after the sentence beginning "Throughout the early and mid-1970s". Does that do enough to locate it in time? Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Source [149] is contested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Source 149 is in Draft 10; which one do you mean? Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) missing Pylarzyk Pilarzyk described in 1978 how media accounts by youth culture publications focused on the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I've added a passage summarising Pilarzyk. Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) missing Between the years 1972 and 1975, the mainstream media and the popular press focused on the apparent luxurious lifestyle, as well as making negative comments about Rawat's physical appearance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Between Pilarzyk (now added) and what we have, I think this is now covered already. missing additional info from Melton. (a) he does not speak of the "mission", but of the "organization"; (b) he says that through the late 1980s there was no further controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The late 80s really belong to the next section of the article; could we add that comment there? I've changed "Mission" to "organization" as per Melton. Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That addition can be a good link up text for the next section, so I am arguing for its inclusion at the end of this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) What is the dispute over Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Here is a link to the bio of award-winning journalist Chip Brown.[54] Again, what is the complaint about this source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the phrase "residues of belief in", which isn't the best image (perhaps change it to "a greatly reduced belief in" or "a waning belief in"?) I think proposal 9 is pretty good. Definitely better than proposal 10 as it stands now. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Well, I know Downton's a source, but it's not a factual account concerning 1976. The change in the presentation of Prem Rawat to the public beginning early 1976, had nothing to do with what premies believed, it was purely cosmetic. He was being presented to the public as a spiritual leader and inspirational speaker, but that's definitely not was what was being taught to aspirants (interested newcomers who were working towards receiving K). I know this because I received Knowledge session in January 1976 in Connecticut, and among the many prerequisites for being selected to be taught the K techniques by mahatmas or initiator/instructors, was a solid belief in Maharaji's divinity as the Lord incarnate, and anyone who expressed doubts about Rawat's divinity simply was not selected. Arti was still sung, the Knowlege oath was in full use, and etc., etc. So resurgence of devotion came at the end of 1976 when Rawat signalled to us that it was okay to worship him openly again. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I'm puzzled as to why Cagan is being used as a source in a controversial proposal. Maharaji may have moved to Miami Beach after the fire on the Malibu home, but by early 1979, the DECA B707 project was in full operation, ready to acquire the B707 and expand operations considerably, which it did by summer, 1979. He moved to Miami Beach to oversee the operation of the reconfiguration of his first private jet, and by the summer of 1979 his fleet of luxury automobiles was transported, via tracter trailer, from Malibu to the DECA project where the automobiles were kept in a large area in which his private crew of auto mechanics worked on them. The Mercedes 600 stretch limo, Maserati, and the Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, were among among many, many gorgeous, expensive cars, which Rawat drove in and out of that place frequently for fun. They weren't only purchased to transport him to and from speaking events. It was the Mercedes 600 that sat in the middle of the general warehouse area while its seats were being reupolstered by the "seamstress" crew that was also working on the B707 seating refurbishing. It was surrounded by velvet ropes so no one but the crew could ever touched it. So you have an eyewitness account, here, and yeah, I know I'm not a source, but at least we should use sources close to the facts. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating, but useless information. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Jossi, would you please say what your objection to the Washington Post source is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Sure. WP:REDFLAG issues we have discussed at length. There is no need to allow the inclusion of derogatory material voiced by people that stated that His former officers claimed the Guru had 'a sadistic streak,' and that practices Maharaj Ji employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools. Nonsense that should not be repeated here. Given the nature of that material, we should not include it, neither other material from the same article just because is less derogatory. We have better sources, let's use these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 10 Momento, I remember noting down in my abandoned draft page that Mishler was fading from the movement in 1976, resigning officially in January 1977. Jonestown was in November 1978, so about two years must have elapsed between Mishler leaving the movement and his speaking to the press about his fears. Jayen466 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. I'm tidyi9ng up the chronology bit by bit.Momento (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC) While previously-allowed material referenced to Cagan is best kept for the purpose of maintaining consistency, adding more material cited only to that source is not going to get a consensus. If editors want to discuss Cagan I suggest we do so on one of the mediation pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Many of the sources used so far are the only source for the material used i.e. Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult. I agree that single sources of contentious material may need to be removed i.e.Chip Brown but the Cagan material isn't contentious.Momento (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yes it is contentious. For example, we have multiple sources that tell us Hans Ji was wealthy. So using Cagan to assert that he was poor is contentious. Furthermore, Cagan is one of the main reasons we're in mediation, and the use of that source is in itself contentious. Chip Brown is writing in the Washington Post, one of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States. They aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I'm sure many people go through various levels of financial health. You can be poor and then become successful. Rawat came to the West with a few dollars ands look what happened to him. They aren't mutually exclusive. And if you recall Cagan was decided to be an independent and respected biographer and MightyRiver Press independent from both Cagan and Rawat. Cagan is fine as a source.Momento (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) No, that decision was never made. Cagan is a disputed source and new material using it as the source is not going to gain consensus. If editors want to discuss Cagan I suggest using one of the mediation pages for it. It's overdue for a settlement since it was among the first items onthe list of things to mediate. Let's leave Cagan out of this proposal and stick to undisputed sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) If you look at the RFC re Cagan as a reliable source [55], 3 out of 4 independent editors said it was OK and fourth was ambivalent. Thanks.Momento (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC) If those editors want to get involved here then they can make their points. Among editors of this article, the source is contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We know anti-Rawat editors don't like Cagan because of the wealth of info contained in her book, that's why we asked non-involved, independent editors if Cagan was a reliable source according to Wiki rules not someone's POV. And she is. Anti-Rawat editors cannot limit sources that contradict their POV.Momento (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC) None of those editors actually looked at the book, so far as I can tell. I wasn't particularly opposed to it until I'd read it. Having read it, it's clearly unacceptable. We can hold a second RfC, or post to WP:RSN to resolve the matter. I suggest that we avoid getting into that now. There's nothing we need to add from that source. No scholar includes the information from her, the standard that other editors seem to prefer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) amazon UK says that a new edition of the book is due to come out this month. Unfortunately, it doesn't say which publisher it will be published by. Does anyone know if and how this edition will be different? I was thinking of buying a copy, but if this edition is updated, then I'd wait until it's out. (It appears this is just the UK edition, published by Pragma Press.) Will, no scholar using her may be a reflection of the book only having been published last year. It remains to be seen whether it will be used in future scholarly writing, and how it will be assessed. What did you think are the problems with it that make it unusable? --Jayen466 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Firstly, it is irrelevant what the book contains provided it conforms to Wiki policies and guidelines. If it meets the criteria, it's a reliable source. Secondly, your opinion and mine are seen as biased, that's why we had independent editors comment. And thirdly, no scholar includes the information from her for the very good reason that no scholars have published anything since her book was published. It is a unique and valuable resource.Momento (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) This draft looks promising. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) This sentence doesn't sound right at all. Following the loss of his family's support Rawat, who never charged for teaching Knowledge or for his talks was now dependent on his Western followers for income for himself and his work It implies that Rawat wasn't being supported by DLM or his devotees prior to the family split which is incorrect and that's not what the source says. Which source states that his mother was supporting him prior to that time? It's likely DLM -- U.S. and India was supporting the whole family. Rawat's not charging for Knowledge has little or nothing to do with his lifestyle or how/why he received gifts and money. It was/is his divinity and "Lord of the Universe" status, believed by devotees, that got him the money, support, and gifts he requested through tithing, private donations to him personally, and fundraising. This sentence seems to imply he was left destitute when his mother disowned him when she disowned him after all because of his extravagant lifestyle. Otherwise I like draft10.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) do you have any objections to Draft 9? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The distinction we are drawing is between pre and post marriage Rawat. For 8 years pre-marriage he had the support of his family and DLM India, the biggest and longest established helping organization. And post marriage Mata Ji still held DLM UK and US DLM was burdened with debt. Rawat was entirely dependent on Western premies for support. The fact that he has never charged for Knowledge or his talks is crucial, he has nothing to sell. He only gives it away and relies on the recipients to value the gift and support the giver.Momento (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The material about his changing financial situation may be worthwhile, but the "there's no charge for Knowledge" assertion does not belong in the middle of a biography. It should be somewhere, probably in the "Teachings" article and/or the DLM/EV articles. Wherever it goes, it needs to be balanced by the other views of the matter, such as reported in these sources: The demands on the premies seemed endless. Now Maharaj Ji needed another airplane, the jet they bought him last year was already inadequate. Two hundred thousand dollars had to be raised in a matter of weeks. Sandy and Mark and their two children joined the other premies in a massive fund-raising campaign during which all of their time and enrgy was spent in collecting money that was sent to California. When Sandy complained to the local representative that devotion seemed to be measured according to one's ability to raise funds, she was told that a perfect devotee coujld show her love for the Lord through many forms of service and those who were lazy and unworthy were those who made false distinctions between spiritual devotion and other types of service to the one true Lord on the planet earth. [Jacobs 1989 p.22] The first step was for everyone to take all the money out of his pockets, present it at the foot of the altar and express eternal gratitude and devotion to Guru Maharaj Ji. "If all you have is a check, sign it so that it can be cashed," instructed the mahatma. One boy was found to be holding out enough for his bus fare home. "What if Guru Mahrark Ji doesn't want you to go home?" asked the mahatma. [...]He gave us a greeting to be used in addressing other premies and passed out pieces of paper with his name and address. "Send your worldly possessions here," he said. "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?" "The Cult of Guru Maharaj Ji" Jonathan Rawson, The New Republic, November 17, 1973 p17-18 NPOV requires both views, and those are better presented elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating but useless anecdotal account of unnamed people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Not useless at all. One is printed in a respected periodical, and the other is in a scholarly book. Both are perfectly reliable sources. And there are others with similar stories. Any assertion that there is no charge for Knowledge has to be balanced with the assertions that money was expected from devotees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Downton also talks about how donations were expected, and people were "encouraged" to give up their material possessions. Fascinating but useless? That may be the case for a lot of the text on this page, but not in this case. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The statement "Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press and a "little house" by the premies" doesn't have a proper source that I can see, where is the support for the "little house by the premies" part? It doesn't appear to be referenced by the footnotes provided.Also I still see no point in the paragraph that talks about introducing his wife and inviting people in for cookies. That is not what this paragraph is about. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I would not support the "little house" insertion without the text making it clear that this was (presumably) tongue-in-cheek (and even then we should not make tongue-in-cheek comments). Judging from the pictures I have seen, it is not a "little house" by any stretch of the imagination. Jayen466 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It was a little house in 1974 when it was purchased. I presume the house you've seen is that one that was build in the 90s after the other was demolished.00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There is a picture in the 1979 LA Times article (the one that says it was bought for him and his two children). When I hear "little house", I picture something else, sorry. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The mention of the couple being serenaded and the serenaders being invited for tea and cookies is over the top in my estimation; I think we are better off without that. Jayen466 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It makes an appropriate contrast to all the "money" issues that this section focuses on.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) While I agree it would be nice to have some content that is not about the money, this isn't it. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The claim that Mataji was the "patron" appears unsourced. (And shouldn't that be matron ;-) in any case?) At any rate, did she not gain legal control only after a lawsuit fought against Prem Rawat? Jayen466 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Very good Jayen. The source for the matron is Cagan p 205. But it is obvious anyway. Rawat became Guru at 8, he couldn't control anything. Other sources talk of Mata JI controlling DLM UK and Rawat's followers having to start a new organization. And the 1975 court case was initiated by BBJ to which Rawat raised a counter claim but both were dropped without result (Cagan 208)Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Right, the lawsuit was dropped, and Rawat left the field to Satpal for several years. Also mentioned in a People Weekly Magazine article. --Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) He does not see himself as bound by conventional beliefs or practices of any institutionalized religion or tradition-honored worldview. He is essentially an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. I think this would at the very least require attribution (mainly to Geaves, presumably?). I also don't think it fits into this section on Rawat's teenager years. Geaves wrote in 2004; the man he characterises is the adult Rawat, is it not? --Jayen466 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. Doesn't fit chronology.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Rawat tried to heal the growing rift with the Mission but in August Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM in the United States and Rawat parted ways. The sentence is unsourced, and "the growing rift with the Mission" comes rather out of the blue – what rift? what caused it? when did it begin? rift between whom specifically? I have trouble following the narrative here. Jayen466 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Cagan page 213. The rift started after Millennium and made worse when the DLM organizers told Rawat not to come to the office. THere are other sources Downton page 186.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Okay. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) By the end of the 70s DLM, while growing little in the United States with 10,000 to 12,000 active members, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America I think the tense is wrong, it should be had expanded. Jayen466 00:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Correct.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) In the first para, the Foss & Larkin quote still needs a reference (Worshiping the Absurd). Jayen466 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. Worshipping the Absurd 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' Article by Daniel Foss and Larkin in Sociological Analysis, 1978. Not sure of page number.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) By 1975 Rawat's message was available in 58 countries on six continents but the 16 year old was constantly criticized by the media for his age, his diet, his physical appearance and the gifts showered on him by his adoring followers. Sourced to Downton (and generates a ref error). Would you have a page number? --Jayen466 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I'll check on this. Thanks for all the good work.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Pleasure. Sorry the latest effort didn't rank with that; but it was a good-faith attempt to summarize Cagan, and my understanding was that Rawat is comfortable with his humanity, and has actually fought for it. But in the present, overall climate of the article, I can see it didn't come off. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 11 Incorporates a paragraph summarising Pilarzyk, including mention of premies' responses to media reporting, other changes discussed under Draft 9, plus some material from Draft 10. --Jayen466 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) A couple of points: It says "reports in U.S. papers..." but there were also reports in U.K. papers. I believe the Indian press was also criticial of the subject. Also, it says "Rawat, who never charged fees for his talks or for teaching Knowledge,..." and that is an imcomplete statement of the situtation (see above). I suggest leaving it out to avoid getting into a lengthy aside about the finances of the DLM and the expectated contributions by devotees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I hadn't seen the above discussion until after I posted this draft. Do we have any UK newspaper articles? I wasn't in the UK at the time, and haven't done any research in that regard as yet. (Don't know anything about European reporting, either.) Jayen466 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle for sources on this topic. The Daily Mail had a lot to say about the materialism. I've seen some indirect reference to negative Indian press coverage too. Rather than detailing all that it can be fixed by just omitting "U.S.". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Noted. Removed US, removed reference to not charging. --Jayen466 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I like the approach of Draft 11. It needs work, but I hope this version or similar can be be accepted. I particularly like the balance between the perceived reasonable criticism of PR's "luxurious" lifestyle, with the perceived unreasonable criticism relating to to his physical appearance, etc. This paints the picture that whilst the mainstream press of the 70s did (arguably fairly) criticize him for his lifestyle, there was also some blatantly unfair and discriminatory (physical appearance) criticism. I am really hoping that all parties can accept that notable references to his lifestyle (cars, planes, etc) need to be included for balance, along with clear indications that some media criticism was unfair and discriminatory. Savlonn (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with the principle that either reference to finances are omitted (e.g. PR not charging for 'the knowledge') or that if this statement is included, it is balanced with references to premies being expected to financially contribute. Savlonn (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I agree Savlonn that media criticism of Prem Rawat's appearance was unfair and it was very petty, too. People can't help what body shape they inherit from their parents and I don't think it's necessary to include those types of comments in his biography. It detracts from more serious issues. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Relation with the press is a typical "reception" topic, hence User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6#Media perceptions - which makes use of the Pilarzyk source, exactly the same paragraph as summarized by Jayen (proposal 6 is the "Reception" section proposal). Indeed, I would keep that out of the biographical narrative, and not unbalance the article as a whole by over-using a single paragraph of a scholarly article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Requesting mediator intervention. Incivility levels are rising again. Then I'm not talking about the s***t expression in one of the sections above, but ultimatums in the sense of "This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article" are not a form of civil discussion. The Pilarzyk paragraph treats press articles as many from the period we treat in the "Leaving India" section, as from the period treated in the "Coming of age" section. Since Pilarzyk's treatment is without distinction for both periods, it would be difficult to cut it in two halves for each of the Wikipedia article sections. Thus, it makes more sense to treat this in the "Reception" section, as it is about a typical "reception" topic. Pilarzyk is very useful, I never said otherwise. Don't forget I got the Pilarzyk quote in Wikipedia (not the reference, but the quoted text of the paragraph we're now summarizing), and was the first to use it for proposed article text. I also never implied I thought it the next best thing since sliced bread. So the "This is amazing, suddenly Pylarzik [sic] is not useful anymore here,..." comment below is needlesly inflammatory. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) This is amazing, suddenly Pylarzik is not useful anymore here, but useful in other sections? This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The press coverage of that time made these comments showing the inherent bias and misunderstanding of the time. It may be needed for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I can see the potential overlap with Proposal 6, the details of which I wasn't aware of. What do you think, Will? --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I don't see any parts of Draft 6 that would benefit this draft. What parts are folks thinking of? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We're talking about Proposal 6 (not Draft 6). The present paragraph in Draft 11, starting "Besides Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports ..." summarises a source that is also summarised in User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal6#Draft_2 Jayen466 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It is getting there, but it misses important information about these years. Jaen: Please see if you can incorporate some text from this draft on Proposal 6: According to James V. Downton, many people were amazed at the mass following the 13-year-old guru attracted during 1971-73. He noted that most were young people from the counterculture, and they accepted him as a "Perfect Master" despite his youth. Melton describes his arrival in the West as being met with some ridicule, but agrees that he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from the young adults open to his message. Downton observed that from his early beginnings Prem Rawat appealed to his followers to give up the concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the "Knowledge" or life force, but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement. Ron Geaves, one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat who later became a Professor of Religion in the UK states that Prem Rawat has been successful since he left India in 1971, establishing his teachings in over eighty countries, and cites that his original vehicle, the Divine Light Mission, was described as the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat was interviewed in 1973 on the The Merv Griffin Show. The first question asked was related to his youth, and to people putting their faith in him despite his age. The 15-year-old Rawat answered that it was not a question of faith but a practical experience. Griffin's other questions also referred to his age, asking what kind of experience can a 15-year-old have, to which Rawat responded that this particular experience is unrelated to age. According to sociologist Pilarzyk the youth culture response — mainly from decidedly leftist political ideologies — was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Pilarzyk mentioned that these criticisms usually focused on what they perceived as phoniness of the "blissed-out premies", and referring to the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and physical condition of the guru. These accounts are described by Pilarzyk as being quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's adherents point of view, which drew responses from them that varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. Positive comments came from youth culture "folk heroes" as anti-war activist as Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Will have a look at this and the next point tomorrow. --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the delayed response. The first paragraph does not really belong in this section, chronologically. The years 1971–1973 are covered in the "Leaving India" section, so the proposed passage should rather be added there. The second paragraph you propose also belongs into the previous section, chronologically, since the main growth phase of the DLM was 71-73. To the extent that Geaves refers to developments up to and including the present, this could go into Reception, but it makes little sense in a "Coming of Age" section that is supposed to cover the years 1973–1980. The third para is just on the borderline, datewise, but I would prefer beginning the Coming of Age section with either his marriage or his taking control of the DLM, so again, probably better under "Leaving India". The last paragraph has largely been incorporated. Generally, I feel the biography part should have a clean chronological structure. Come to think of it, it would probably make sense if we added years to each subsection of the Prem Rawat article, just so we don't lose sight of what decade we're in. (So if we added years, the "Leaving India" subheader would become "Leaving India (1971–1973)". "Coming of Age" would be "Coming of Age (1973–1980)".) Jayen466 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Besides the Malibu estate, Rawat had homes in London, New York and Denver;[107] he had two planes, sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver, all of them said to be gifts from disciples. Propose to change to: Press reports from 1972-1974, describes Rawat's Malibu estate, and homes in London, New York and Denver;[107] he had two planes, sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver, all of them said to be gifts from disciples at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That would be over-attribution. First, the existence of the homes, planes, and cars is not an opinion that needs to be attributed. Second, scholars and press reports from other years also report the existence of the homes, planes, and cars. If Jossi is really serious about this we'd have to attribute every sentence in this article, which would be ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press-- Propose to change to: Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in a press report ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Correct, if, as I believe is the case, we only have one press report that refers to it in those terms. Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) It was described in similar terms in many reports. It would be misleading to make it appear that the description was limited to one source. We could list all the different terms, but that may be excessive. The existing language is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Either find a way to describe it in general terms, but if you use quoted text it needs to be attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Opinions are not fact: Besides Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports often focused on his physical appearance. Propose change to Besides what was described as Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports often focused pejoratively on his physical appearance and his age. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I would object to this change. The use of the word "pejoratively" assumes facts we do not have, and biases the article with words intended to cause an emotional response to the sentence. it is not NPOV. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Oh no, no, no. There are plenty of such sources and this is not NPOV. Read the list of sources and you will see that this is a good summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) "Pejoratively" is an opinion. We'd have to attribute it to Jossi. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We could say "often criticized him for his age and physical appearance". That is covered by Pilarzyk. Jayen466 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) So implemented: "Besides reporting on his perceived materialistic fixations, the media often criticized Rawat for his age and physical appearance" Jayen466 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Saying no 3 times, does not make it NPOV, neither does phrasing your opinion as fact. It is not a good summary. Read the list of sources, you'll see why. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I will say it 4 times or as many times I think it necessary. The sources are there for you to read. So read them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Welcome back to grade 3 everyone... hey, if I say it five times, do I win? Childish. The sources are there for you to read. So read them. Your suggested summary is NOT NPOV.-- Maelefique (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) When did you made any useful comments and proposals? Last time you did any research?. Zero so far. When you have, then talk to me about childish behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) As if you didn't know how to look up my edits on your own, how many samples would you like me to provide for you? And while I'm wasting my time doing that, what other non-NPOV material are you going to try and shove down people's throats (your phrase, not mine)? Since you can't admit you're wrong, are you just trying to change the subject now? And hopefully you realize that you just said making useful comments and proposals gives people the right to be childish...No wonder we don't agree on so many things... -- Maelefique (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Age is a relevant aspect that should be added, agreed. The materialistic fixations were in quotation marks, but I don't mind adding "described as" (or perhaps "perceived as", as we're summarising Pilarzyk rather than press) to make POV attribution clearer. Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We've desriobed his age, we haven't desribed his physical appearance. If we're going to comment on the comments about it then we need to say what they comments were. They weren't describing a scar or a deformity, which isn't clear from the text proposed here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We are saying that numerous sources where critical without getting into details, and it is approriate for context to denote that these reports did not not only fixated on the lifestyle but on his physical appearance and his age. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC) In the early 1980s, there was an ongoing controversy around a helipad on the Malibu estate Propose to change to In the early 1980s, there was a neighborhood dispute around a helipad on the Malibu estate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I object to this change. It was not a neighbourhood dispute, the neighbours were involved, and so was the city council, it was talked about at city council meetings, this is not some dog barking late at night that some neighbour was annoyed at. It was definitely a controversy. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) FWIW, it was referred to as a "neighborhood dispute" in the LA Times (Ex-Guru seeks to expand his heavenly rights, April 11 1985). Jayen466 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC) For this article it's a red herring. I have just received final local government approval to build a larger-than-regulations-suggest workshop on a hill on my property. I had to make concessions to council and assurances to neighbours to get it through. It's normal, it's the way things are done in the real world. This tells us nothing about the subject of this article, and its inclusion makes insinuations unworthy of an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I tend to agree. See #Draft 7 above, it's been in and out. The trick is to establish consensus. --Jayen466 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Have no problem with that either. Perhaps we should add "ongoing" back in though, since it played out over a number of years. --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We already agreed on this material months ago. I don't see what is wrong with the existing text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Are we going to continue the error that Rawat's wife was a secretary?Momento (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I have no idea where the claim that she was a secretary came from. If it's wrong it needs to be fixed. Are there sources one way or the other? Jayen466 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Probably from a reliable source but she was an air hostess as correctly reported by Cagan.Momento (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) There are numerous reports that the wife was a stewardess and Rawat's secretary: His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. The devotees counteract this by depicting him, his wife and children as a kind of holy family, an example of what lies in store for many premies. [Saliba 1980] "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24" Los Angeles Times; May 21, 1974; "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues.. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune And so on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) A good example of how bad most news reports are.Momento (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC) And allow only criticism? Of 25 lines in this draft only two about what he was actually doing that made him notable - touring and talking about inner peace and giving Knowledge. What a disgrace.Momento (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) How many press sources are solely devoted to those topics? If it weren't for the controversies, etc, he wouldn't be notable at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC) There we go! Finally we get toknow what you think of the subject and the obvious antagonistic bias with which you have been editing all along. Whatever happened to "I am a neutral and non-involved editor"? The fact that an hostile press made a big deal of someone they did not understand, and in the context of the 1970's means only that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) You have just demonstrated why Wikipedia says " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist". By only focusing on "controversies", this article becomes a mirror image of the sensationalist reporting. That's why this article needs material from less sensational sources.Momento (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) As you know, most of that draft is simply what the present article contains right now. And unless we can arrive at an understanding that Cagan is okay, we are probably short on sources for his non-press-reported activities. (FWIW, I have ordered the Cagan bio.) Jayen466 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC) In the inerests of continuity, and of keeping this proposal limited, I don't object to retaining the Cagan material already in the article, material which we've previously discussed. But after having actually read the book I don't believe it's suitable for use as a source for anything except Cagan's opinions. If folks want to press the point we can discuss it elsewhere. But let's not seek conflict. I changed one of the early drafts to omit Macgregor who another editor wanted to use. Let's show the same discretion with Cagan. Let's seek consensus not conflict. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using Cagan for non-contentious material. Nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We had an RFC about Cagan and three independent editors said Cagan was fine, and one editor was ambivalent. [56]. Cagan is a reliable source.Momento (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The RFC does not say Cagan is a reliable source, and there are serious questions raised in the RFC which we do not have answers to. If you limit your reading to non-involved editors, you can see that clearly, no consensus was reached, and there are problems with the Cagan material. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The RFC does "not" say anything. But three independent editors who responded did say that they reject the view that Cagan was unreliable.Momento (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC) They didn't say that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) RFC question = Should a biographical book by Andrea Cagan be considered an unreliable source on the basis that the publisher is a small publisher and has published only one book? RFC editor = 1) With over a dozen books published by reputable publishers (Morrow, Berkley, Warner), I'm not sure why a having a new publishing house suddenly makes her work unreliable; nor can I think of any cases where an author is considered a reliable source except for some of the author's books. RFC editor = 2) a reliable author doesn't suddenly become unreliable simply by being published by a new publishing house. RFC editor = 3) it has been general practice in the past to assume that books published by non-vanity publishers are reliable, unless evidence is presented otherwise.Momento (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) There is more material about Rawat's activities in 1974-1980, and we ought to present that as well and in a much larger proportion than we have now. I will dig up some sources, but Cagan can be used as this is not "contentious" material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Cagan is a disputed source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not for non contentious subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Yep. In re-reading this long section the unbalance is pretty evident. This proposal needs considerable work by all involved to make it balanced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Jaen: There is good material from Melton and others that Momento just added to draft 10, that you may want to consider adding to Fraft 11, in addition to the other suggestions I made above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Jayen, several of Jossi's suggestions above are obviously detrimental to the draft, please read the comments above before reducing your work to something less. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Any objections to including the sentence "In July Rawat and his wife travelled to Copenhagen to meet with 8,000 followers, an event that marked his wife's first public appearance." sans tea and cookies? I think it is a fair point that Rawat's public activities – apart from being given cars and enjoying gadgets – should also be covered. --Jayen466 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC) We all know, and the article seems to convey, that the subject travelled extensively. That particular trip doesn't appear to be noteworthy. We barely mention the wife again, so her first public appearance doens't seem important. Speaking of the wife, why did we delete her occupation of secretary and stewardess? Those were widely reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) The article doesn't "seem to convey the subject travelled extensively". On the contrary in 24 lines covering Rawat's life between 74 and 80, we have three sentences that mention tours. One is the recently added - Rawat "financing his entourage of close officials and mahatmas on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals" (he's not included). And a trip to "Atlantic City, New Jersey" in 76 and to India, South America and Europe in 1980. That's one trip in 76, and 3 in 80. At a minimum Rawat visited - Copenhagen 74, India, Venezuala 75, US summer tour, Italy, Peru, Swaziland, Argentina, Frankfurt 76, Rawat spoke in a dozen cities in tours of the US and Europe that finished with a 5 day event for 14,000 in Rome in November 77 and that's just from Cagan. The current method seems to be to reduce all mention of Rawat touring and talking and the amount of people receiving Knowledge and fill the article with money stories. The Copenhagen story should be included - it gives us numbers of followers, shows that Rawat shared the stage with his wife, shows the love of the serenading premies and Marolyn and Rwat's friendship to them. It's far more valuable than "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat maintained his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.", which is only included because it mentions "cults". It's time to be fair to Rawat.Momento (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC) If we can find a reliable, 3rd party source besides Cagan for his travel I wouldn't mind adding some statistics about the subject's travelling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that trip doesn't appear particularly noteworthy. As for Johnson being a stewardess, that wasn't in the draft before either. I removed the reference to her being Rawat's secretary, since it seems to be a disputed fact. FWIW, the way their courtship is described by Cagan, Johnson was not working for Rawat at the time he began to take a romantic interest in her (though she was asked to serve as a stewardess on a flight that Rawat took). I have no objection to adding that she was a stewardess; if we want to refer to her being her secretary, we should do so with attribution and mention that Cagan contradicts that. On balance, I'd rather leave the reference to her being a secretary out. Jayen466 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Does Cagan directly deny that Johnson was a secretary? I don't recall and don't have the book in front of me. The fact that the book contradicts many press accounts doesn't mean that the book is correct. (At least one source says she was a "drama queen" in high school - I didn't know that that was a real title!). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I do not see Cagan denying any such thing. Al Gagan says is that she was a stewardess who met Rawat in 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) And before we jump and use mistaken AP desk wires, it would be better to use our scholarly sources first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Galanter writes: married an American airline stewardess and settled down, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) You are both correct, she does not "deny" that she was his secretary, in fact she doesn't mention the word "secretary" as far as I have seen. What Cagan does describe though, in some detail, about how they met etc., is incompatible with the presentation that he "married his secretary" in the sense that is commonly understood, i.e. that she was his secretary for x amount of time, and then he developed an interest in her. I'd rather not evoke that cliché, since it does not seem to fit the facts. Jayen466 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (ec)In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch which, according to Foss and Larkin, "had developed a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism and a penchant for office forms and organizational charts" What is missing from this is a fact that has been covered by Geaves, Levine and Nelson: that after he took over he proceeded to dismantle that stuff and democratized and secularized the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Have no problem with mentioning that. Does anyone else? --Jayen466 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (Note: Though I also remember reading, in Downton, that this secularisation was to some extent reversed after Dec. 76. Jayen466 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)) Saliba is a scholar too. His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. [Saliba 1980] To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that "a fat little rich kid" with a taste for luxurious living and expensive gadgets—and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself—could be the Perfect Master;... [Foss & Larkin 1978] Guru Maharaj Ji and Marolyn Lois Johnson, a young woman who worked as a United Airlines stewardess before becoming private secretary to the Guru, were married in Denver on May 20, 1974. [Current Biography Yearbook 1974] It may be a cliche, but that doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) An obvious cliche. I guess we will have to say that there are competing opinions on the matter. (After reading Kemmeny's comment on Foss & Larkin, we ought to at least, understand that they were seriously off in their "study) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Cliche or not, it doesn't change the verifiable facts. Do you have a problem with Saliba or the Current Biography Yearbook as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Did I say I had a problem? I said that we ought to report that there are competing accounts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC) What account says she wasn't a secretary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I still think it is the more elegant solution simply not to mention it at all. The fact that something is verifiable does not mean we have to include it. Jayen466 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Another way is to mention both occupations without confirming either. Something like "Johnson, variously described as a stewardess or as Rawat's secretary..." This information is much more verifiable, and notable, than a trip to Copenhagen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) This is why they say a little knowledge is dangerous. Every premie who was around at the time knows she was an airline stewardess not a secretary and met as described by eye witnesses in Cagan. The secretary story is completely false. WillBeBack suggestion to say " variously described as a stewardess or as Rawat's secretary" is completely inappropriate. One thing is certain, we should mention she was a follower. Editors who use their personal experience as a source should give us enough information to know how they'd know. I'd thought that the editor making this assertion lived on a different continent than Rawat, so I'm not sure how he'd be familiar with the job title of the subject's then-fiancee. If he'd like to tell us then I'm sure we'd all be interested. But failing that it's a pointless comment. Some editors here ask for source, then for better sources, then for more better sources, then they say that the sources are just copying each other's mistakes and can't be trusted anyway because their personal knowledge contradicts them. Editors who make arguments like that don't understand Wikipedia's policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not offering my "personal experience as a source ", I'm saying how it was. As you know I am a stickler for following Wiki policy, not just to the letter but in spirit as well.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC) But how do you know "how it was"? If they were a continent away, and if DLM publications were calling her his secretary, then what inside line do you have to know the "truth"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Because every premie in the world was intrigued with the marriage and premies who knew her spread the word.Momento (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I found an an article from The Golden Age (which I understand was an Australian DLM publication) online, which is quoted to have said, "Marolyn Johnson, now Marolyn Singh Rawat, was born in San Diego, California, on October 25, 1949. She graduated from Southwestern College, California, in 1970 and received Knowledge in September 1973. She has known Guru Maharaj Ji for about a year, and they developed a close relationship during the time Marolyn served as Guru Maharaj Ji's secretary." Even so, I would not like to present the cliché of "he married his secretary", simply because it reads different in Cagan. Jayen466 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your research. Considering the fact that we now have a contemporaneous DLM account calling her his secretary, contemporaneous newspaper accounts calling her his secretary, and scholarly accounts calling her his secreatry, it appears the Cagan's view is contradicted from all sides. When so many sources contradict her that's a reason to doubt her accuracy rather than to that she's right and they're wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I can find more scholarly sources that describes PR's wife as a stewardess and not as a secretary. So that is not the issue. We all know by now that once a mistaken assertion is made by one source it gets repeated/cited by other sources. I would say than in these cases, hearing it directly from people close to the subject (i.e. Cagan interviewees) is probably the safest as it relates to accuracy. After all, why these witnesses would want to hide a fact such as a secretarial job? I simply don't see a reason for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Not so fast. The Golden Age has Marolyn receiving Knowledge in Sept 73 but Cagan has her living in an ashram in June. Another contradiction. It think Cagan who interviewed far more eye witnesses than the Golden Age or all the media combined has to be the trusted source. Numerous times Cagan has quoted Marolyn, and I think Marolyn knows whether she was a stewardess or not.Momento (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) True, noticed that too. I concluded that she must have moved into the ashram as an aspirant. Jayen466 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) That would be very unusual and if it was the case I'm sure Cagan would have mentioned it.Momento (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :-) Sorry to disappoint you, Will, but Cagan's account is not contradicted. Her account and the others simply contain different parts of the story. What Cagan says is that in June 1973, Johnson, an ashramite and airline hostess, came to Rawat's house to deliver a gift. He happened to come to the door, and they "clicked". A week later, Johnson received a call and was asked to attend a flight Rawat was on. Subsequently she was asked to deliver some equipment to Rawat. After she arrived in Denver, they spent some time together. Then Rawat expressed a wish to get to know her better. They developed a relationship which they tried to hide from other members of Rawat's family, who might disapprove, and spent more and more time together. The weight of sources would seem to indicate that at some point, she was officially designated his secretary. These subtleties are lost if we simply say, "married his secretary". Jayen466 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It's not either/or. We now have a DLM source that says she was a stewardess and then a secretary. Why would the writers at the DLM make up the fact that she was his secretary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I don't believe they did. Jayen466 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Why would the LA Times make up the fact that "the Malibu estate was bought in 1974 for Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children".Momento (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) And why would the NY Times mke up the fact that "was married Monday night in his $80,000 Denver home."Momento (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) And this settles it "Dale Johnson, said his daughter met the guru when she was a stewardess for United Air Lines. She quit the airline in February and became the guru's secretary." So she was an airline stewardess when they met and resigned 3 months before they were married.Momento (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Exactly. She was a stewardess and then his secretary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I've had a go at including the development of the relationship. What do you guys think? Will that do? Can it be made better? --Jayen466 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I think we've reached the tipping point. This article is now a suitable for a tabloid. Forget Rawat as a teenage guru with millions of followers, it's now a romance novel. Back to Draft 10 before faint.Momento (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :-) We can always go back to "married his secretary", if you guys think that's preferable. Though personally, I thought that as part of Coming of Age, it is not irrelevant in his bio. At least it seemed important enough to him. Jayen466 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Why don't we go back to writing a fair, unbiased encyclopedic article on Prem Rawat, instead of this mess.Momento (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Could you indicate the source, Momento? Then we can cite it. Jayen466 01:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 2 A - THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1974 FLORENCE MORNING NEWS She's Tried Everything Else And Now She's Mrs. Guru DENVER, Colo. (AP) Cheerleader. Homecoming queen. Airline stewardess. And now, Mrs. Prem Pal Singh Rawat Guru's wife.Momento (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC) If we're going to expand the material on Johnson ousing poor sources then we should include the important details that she continued to kiss her husband's feet in public after the wedding, which is well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We should move over some of the "Durga Ji" material from the DLM. It's more appropriate here. The part that's relevant there is the celibacy issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Time for re-write - "Other devotees said she played the role of a stewardess in a film made for the mission entitled "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" from A-2 INDEPENDENT (AM) * PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM) Long Beach, Calif., Wed., May 22, 1974. So now we have - Marolyn Johnson, a beautiful, humble, person, variously known as an actress, secretary, stewardess who is blond, tall 24 wore a white and red gown to the ceremony while the short, cherubic guru who has recently begun sporting a sparse mustache wore a dark tuxedo to the wedding which was held simultaneously at the Vockland Community Church at Lookout Mountain and Rockland Community Church and in the guru's $80,000 Denver home.Momento (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Perhaps we should split the marriage paragraph into a section and a separate proposal. this is getting far afield from the original proposal and the wife/wedding/rift deserves more space. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I will have to agree with Momento here... I think that this is becoming more of a evening UK tabloid piece than an encyclopedic article. I mean, just read these drafts! Unless substantial work is done, this kind of writing stick like a sore thumb in any article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I would argue to go back to Draft 6. Seriously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC) "Tabloid" is a worn-out argument without meaning. But I agree in part that we're losing focus here. Let's use a fresh propsoal for new material about Johnson and keep this proposal limite to the material lon Rawat's lifestyle that we've already discussed. Let's stick wth undisputed sources and seek consensus rather than promoting disputes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Not a worn-out argument once you read the draft, Will. I move to reconsider Draft 6 which captures the essence of what needs to be said, and said in an encyclopedic tone. 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Where would Draft 6 go in the current text? Jayen466 09:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Which parts are like a tabloid and what makes themn that way? If you can't answer I'll restart the "buzzword" thread on the mediation thread, where I thought we'd dealt with these useless phrases that have no meaning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Just read the Draft 11 and tell me what is encyclopedic about 75% of the stuff there. Just because it was published somewhere it does not mean that it has to be included in a biography. Some of the stuff is utterly useless fluff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There is too much unencyclopedic or unbalanced material There is an emphasis on the trivial (is she a stewardess or is she a secretary). There is an emphasis on presenting everyone's view except Rawat's (She publicly disowned him in 1975, subsequently gaining legal control of the Indian DLM; no mention that Mata Ji was the patron and already had legal control). There is over emphasis of negative material (His affluent lifestyle over that period, maintained despite the DLM's financial difficulties following the Millennium '73 festival, generated considerable controversy and, according to Bromley and Shupe, even defections among premies; no mention that under Rawat's direction all the debt created by his mother brother and Mishler and Hand was repaid). And what is sorely missing is material about what Rawat was doing in his other life, the one where he's the leader of the fasted growing NRM in America i.e. touring, talking, relating to his followers, transforming DLM etc And a lack of context for all the criticism (all about money but nothing about the traditional role of the guru as per Downton and others). In short, it looks like an article put together by an anti-Rawat reporter which ignores what Rawat is doing in order to present what his critics think he's doing. Perfect for a tabloid, unsuitable for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) While I have difficulty seeing how else one could summarise Cagan p. 187–190 in two or three sentences, this attempt clearly has failed. Draft 11 rolled back. Jayen466 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It doesn't need to be in. Imagine writing about a prolific period in a musician's life where his music is not discussed only how much he made, who he dated and what his critics said. Now remove the musicians name and put in Rawat and you've got this draft. I'm going to concentrate on draft 10.Momento (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We have an an entire, separate article on Rawat's teachings and another entire article on the DLM (about which Cagan is bizarrely silent). This article is just about his life. As for what's "encyclopedic", you'll find that real encyclopedists, like Melton, include most of the details you're compaining about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) On the contrary, this article is about Prem Rawat not Prem Rawat's life. Prem Rawat is primarily noted for being a guru/teacher/speaker on inner peace. That is the core of his notability and that should be the core of the article.Momento (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Tend to agree with Will here. Biographies of Goethe, e.g., tend to cover the crushes he had on various women in great detail, partly because these experiences influenced and coloured his work (Young Werther and all that). Same with rock musicians. Jayen466 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Goethe crushes may have been an influence his work but Rawat's marriage didn't influence his teachings. If you look at Goethe's Wiki bio his "crushes" are hardly mentioned. And musicians may have been inspired by lovers in the songs the wrote but Rawat isn't writing love songs to his wife, he has been speaking and teaching about inner peace for 40 years. Rawat's wife is notable for two things - that he married her (so he's not a renunciate) and that he shared the stage with her (unlike every other Indian guru). Momento (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) (Goethe's German wiki bio is rather more comprehensive, as one might expect, and covers this in great detail, as do published biographies retracing his life.) Rawat's marriage may not have affected his teaching in a major way (though perhaps in a minor way, since I remember reading he also started to draw on his experiences as a father and husband in his talks later on), but it did affect the course of his movement in a major way. The DLM split over the issue, Rawat lost 80% of his worldwide following, his brother had a picture showing him and his wife kissing published in the Indian press (at a time when Bollywood films had a legally defined minimum distance of a foot or so between the lips of any male and female actors, making this a pornographic image according to Indian sensibilities), etc. Cagan's biography is actually full of such stuff that could arguably be said to be trivia compared to Rawat's message of meditation. As is argued below, the birth of his children is also something still missing in our bio, and his wife obviously played a major role in that. So I don't think it is quite the same as the bio of a scientist, for example, whose husband or wife has no independent notability and can simply be covered in a single sentence noting date of marriage and number of children. Apart from that, I am entirely in favour of adding material about his teaching activity. Jayen466 11:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I agree the marriage is important but secretary/stewardess, early romance is not. I'm also in favor of more teaching and I believe Rawat introducing his wife to the 8000 premies in Copenhagen is a useful, fact filled sentence.Momento (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) "Spacer refs" I find it very hard to follow the changes to refs in a list with no landmarks, so I've inserted a "spacer ref" at the end of each proposal so that we can see where the refs for each proposal start and stop. There may be a must elegant way of doing it, but I can't think of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Added an horizontal line at the end of the last ref tag in each draft. Markup: <hr /> ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Mediator Comments I think it's best if I just add a section here. All of you need to calm down. The use of sources always depends of the context of their use. I'll remind you that it isn't my role as a mediator to handle editorial conduct issues, however I do use my discretion, and when I feel necessary, I do what is required, whether on occasion it may be controversial. That said, I do think that everyone here could benefit from some tea, and a sit down. Additionally, I would like for you all to read this. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) note, after the Cagan RfC (early 2007: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#RFC_Summary), there was another elaborate discussion on its status (started shortly after the Metz article): Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible” – with follow-ups like Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Use of Cagan's Book. The current more-or-less consensus resulting from all that is: Cagan can be used for non-contentious assertions only (number of children, etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Is there any thing in these drafts that is sourced to Cagan and that is contentious? Please point these to me, because I don't seem to find any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) If no other reputable author contradicts Cagan the material in PIP, then it is not contentious.Momento (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC) PIP should be treated as a primary, self-published source because Cagan was hired by premies to write the biography from their point of view and it was published by Mighty River Press, that is owned by a premie with PIP as its only published book. It's widely promoted by Rawat's supporting organizations and TPRF has been handed it out in it's promotion of Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Even if some editors believe that it is a self published source (which is not), material from self-published sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. Read: WP:SPS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It's not a matter of belief, it's obvious to any third grader. LOL! TPRF, EV, et al, promote the book all of the timeand gave it away in gift packages to celebrities in LA attending the Academy Awards ceremony last year. Btw, Jossi, were you a source for the book? Or anybody else with whom you work in a "Prem Rawat related organization?" Sylviecyn (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Sylviecyn, please retract "Btw, Jossi, were you a source for the book? Or anybody else with whom you work in a "Prem Rawat related organization?". I think it's rather inappropriate to make such a comment. --Steve Crossin (contact) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Retracted, after consideration, I do think it's a question that should stand, though it's up to Jossi whether they wish to answer or not. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC) No. I refuse to do it. It's a reasonable question, Steve, and since when are you now regulating the behavior of editors? Didn't you just yesterday say it's not your job? Or are you now picking and choosing whose editorial behavior you're going to "mediate?" There was nothing wrong with my question. Obviously, Jossi doesn't have to answer it, but the problem's not with the question. The problem is the reaction to it and I'm not baiting either. It's a legitimate quesiton. In my opinion, Steve, you're the one that's out of line here. Show me the Wiki guideline that says I cannot ask a question of a fellow editor. Show it to me now and I'll comply. Furthermore, I have never, ever, ever been anything but forthcoming and an open book about my involvement with Prem Rawat, before and after my time as a devotee, right down to being quoted in the "Blinded By The Light" article and disclosing my real name. If you're going to behave so unfairly as a mediator, then I'm going to ask you be replaced. That's the long and short of it. And, contrary to certain editor's beliefs, I'm not "baiting" anyone. I'm asking an answerable question, not trying to escalate. Sheesh! Steve, have you happened to notice Jossi's perpetual bad mood and the miserable way he's been treating his fellow editors here with stonewalling and rudeness? Why haven't you done anything about that? Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I'm baffled as to how to respond to that. I'd appreciate it if you don't insult me. This is an extrememly complex dispute to mediate, and there is no benefit for asking me to be replaced whenever I make a comment that you dislike. As for me "regulating the behaviour of editors", I said that it wasn't my role as a mediator. I also said that "however I do use my discretion, and when I feel necessary, I do what is required..". I laid a ground rule when I took on this case, a civility rule. I've made an error of judgment regarding your question, however no-one is perfect, I try to be as perfect as possible. As for Jossi's conduct, yes, I've noticed it. I've noticed the conduct issues of all parties, and it is concerning. It's concerning that making a comment like I did led to a long comment basically asking for me to resign as a mediator. Additionally, I honestly do think that no one would mediate this case. Please understand that I am human, and I do make mistakes, however it is up to Jossi whether he wishes to answer this question or not. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I apologize for the way I responded to you, Steve, but your jumping in here in Jossi's defense seemed unfair and one-sided when all I did was ask him a question. I'm fully aware that it's up to Jossi whether or not he wishes to answer the question, and don't know why you're bringing that up becasue I haven't made any demands that he answer it. I believe it was disproportional, unbalanced, and unfair for you to request I remove my comment when it wasn't uncivil by any standard. Regarding your continuing as mediator, well, yes, I think that may be in question unless, hopefully in the near future you'll have more time to familiarize yourself with the subject and the dynamnics of the interactions between editors here in order that you can make more fair-minded assessments of these types of situations. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Show me the Wiki guideline that says I cannot ask a question of a fellow editor. Wikipedia:Civility and a hint of Wikipedia:Civility#Harassment_and_disclosing_personal_information_.28outing.29 --Jayen466 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I wasn't being uncivil by any standard, and I take great issue with you, Jayen, for even hinting that I'm harassing anyone here. That's a grave accusation, considering the circumstances here. I asked Jossi a simple and reasonable question, because he's blatantly promoting the Cagan book on these pages. Jossi simply could have declined to answer my question and avoided his uproar and hystrionics. That would have been the civil thing to do. I'm getting a bit tired of special treatment here of pro-Rawat editors, and that includes you, Jayen. I refrain from even writing anything for fear I'll be accused of promoting a biased "anti-Rawat" POV (God forbid), while you, Jayen, have been hopping and jumping at every one of Jossi's requests to make edits to text that he prefers. Yeah, I'm angry with you, but I'll get over it. Meanwhile, it might be a good idea, Jayen, if you'd limit yourself to writing one draft per proposal -- it's getting a bit tedious reading your many drafts on the same subject. Therefore, in the future, please make one draft per subject and edit the one you make, instead of making several. Thanks... Sylviecyn (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Asking personal questions is not what we are here for. Jossi's and Momento's wanting to use Cagan as a source has a very simple explanation, from where I am sitting – it's a biography that portrays Rawat in a positive light. --Jayen466 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Especially if Jossi was involved in the book. But then, that would be a COI, and we don't have those here.....oh wait... -- Maelefique (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC) " Facts are facts and have nothing to do with civility or lack of it." [57] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I disagree. I think it's important to know whether any of the editors who are pushing the use of this book were sources for it. The book doesn't list any specific sources, so it's not clear who was involved in the project. If anyone here was involved in putting the book together that should be made known. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Seconded. The question is legitimate. A clear answer to it would move things forward. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not all boooks cite sources, and we do not go about asking editors if they are sources for a book, and siding with Sylviecyn, is very revealing indeed. I have no intention to respond to any such questions, and you can think of this whatever you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The refusal by Jossi to discuss his involvement in this book is very troubling in light of his strenuous arguments on its behalf. It further calls into question the use of this material as a source for this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Whatever happen to your "discuss the edit and not the editor"? I am contributing to this page well within the parameters advised in WP:COI, so please do not try to get the upper hand in this content dispute by asserting COI: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I would argue that these "questions" are a distraction that do not address arguments presented below. Please see it to address the arguments made on its merits and without prejudice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The question of whether a Wikipedia editor was involved in the produciton of a disputed source that he's promoting is very important. If you don't want to address it then please stop promoting the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I think that you are crossing a line which you should not. I am not obliged to either deny or to affirm any such assertions, and I am not "promoting" this book any more that I am "promoting" Nelson, Melton, or Kemmeny. I would ask the mediator to intervene here and stop these comments from Sylvienc and Will Beback≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) So you're not arguing for the inclusion of Cagan as a source? Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought you were. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I am arguing about many sources, this one included. Do you have any problems with this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I'd have a problem if a Wikipedia editor pushing the use of any of those sources had been involved in their production but woould't say how. In my opinion an editor who was involved in the production of a source should either be upfront about the nature of that involvement, or should stay out of the discussion of it. No Mary Roshs please. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ???? Uh? What are you saying? That I am impersonating Cagan? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I've started a thread at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan for discussion of this topic. Let's try to keep this page focused on the proposal to add information about Rawat's lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We already agreed to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, there is no point on that thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It's relevant to every section of this article, not just to this proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC) See thread below. Any other issues to be discussed about this source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, and let's discuss them in one central place rather than in every proposal and talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Other publishing houses for Cagan's book Not worth replying to Sylviencyn's baiting. In any case, there are other publishers that have published Cagan's book, so this whole argument about self-published is irrelevant. Other publishers of Cagan's book:[58] Editorial Dilema [59], and [60] Alles Kultur [61], also featured here [62] Editorial Magnolia [63], and here [64] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I think that renders the supposed self-published status of Mighty River Press and Pragma moot. These foreign-language versions are published by established German, Portuguese and Spanish publishing houses. I checked – as far as I can see, they have been around, and publish other stuff. --Jayen466 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Aye ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) My objection to the source is not based solely on its publisher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ????? So, it is that you just do not like the book? Did not find it interesting? Any other personal opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Let's discuss this on the mediation page, since it's relevant to the use of the book across the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Agree with jayen. Cagan has written several biographies, so she's in the clear. And PIP has been published by several independent and established publishes, so no cause for complaint there. I guess the issue is finally and absolutely resolved.Momento (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC) See User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat#Issue.2FDiscussion_topic_D:_Cagan. (please don't laugh, or get upset...) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC) When I first read Cagan, I was struck by the rather adoring tone of the book and I wished it had been more even-handedly written. Because of this apparent bias, while it seems to be impeccably authored and published, I agreed here that it should be restricted to non-contentious statements only. Since then I have seen the most outrageously negatively-biased sources seriously put up for inclusion, so I withdraw my previous caveat. Unless some editorial discrimination appears in the other areas, I believe the book is fine for all information it contains. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I realize that's your belief, but Wikipedia policy says otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 12 Comments please. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Could you please say which version it's based on and what the main changes are? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC) As I wrote in the heading, it's based on Draft 11. The main changes are to the semantic flow. Have also left out some irrelevancies (IMO.) Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Rumiton, I made some comments about Draft 11 that you are not addressing on this draft. Please read above. As it stands this does not work for me at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I've just added some responses to your comments above, under Draft 11. Jayen466 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I just read through that section. Seems like a long way to go if all the questions need to be dealt with. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC) But I will start tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC) This Draft looks reasonably balanced to me.Comments follow: Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) a). P5 – “Has the term “Premies” previously been explained in the article?--Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Yes. See Prem Rawat. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) b) P6 Grammar – ‘Inspiration’ should be either ‘Inspirator’ or ‘source of inspiration’. --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It's also the word the source used. I think the usage is pretty much acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) c) P7 “he was elevated to a higher level in the conveyance of "Knowledge". 1. What is the source for this? 2. I find this sentence difficult to understand, due to lack of context. By whom was he elevated? What is nature of the elevation in respect of the conveyance of Knowledge? Are you referring to a spiritual elevation – i.e. resurgence in belief of having a divine nature? --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Looking at it afresh, it does not represent the source very well. See my Draft 13 for a new attempt. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) d) P7 “Many returned to ashram life”. This is missing a subject. Did you mean students?--Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The subject is premies in the preceeding sentence. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) e) P8 “several ex-members became vocal critics, and attacked the movement with charges of brainwashing and mind control”. The word “attacked” is way too strong here; ‘accused’ or ‘claimed’ are better words. The article can’t make any assumptions as to whether these claims were justified or not without diving into the analysis of the claims. As such, they should just be presented in a neutral voice. --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Point taken. See Draft 13. See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. My suggestion would be that we concentrate here on the actual changes and additions, and create separate proposals for other items of concern. This section is too big to fix in one gulp; I fear we may never get a proposal into the article this way. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We are working here because the current version is in dispute. Therefore, responding that the wording is used in the current version serves no purpose. I would appreciate if my comments could be addressed within the context of the draft section that I am quoting from. Savlonn (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I appreciate what you're saying. But this proposal was set up to add more coverage of Rawat's "opulent/sumptuous lifestyle" (see above). If we try to do too much at the same time, we may fail to do anything at all. The only reason drafts on this proposal page came to expand and include the entire existing Coming of Age section was to be able to slot things into the correct places chronologically. I am sorry if I have sounded abrupt, and at any rate it's only my opinion. Other editors are free to disagree. Jayen466 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Ok - I also appreciate where you are coming from. I agree to keep the tight focus on PR's lifestyle here, if we agree that consensus would also have to be reached in the relevent article section (e.g. coming of age) in addition to consensus reached here on the "opulent/sumption lifestyle" material. For example, the sentence on brainwashing is a showstopper for me, but am willing to let it sit here as long as we cover it in the appropriate section before publishing to main article. Savlonn (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The heading is Coming of age. I don't see we have any choice but to create a balanced account of the period. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Well done Rumiton, much improved flow. --Jayen466 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Seems we are still in the woods, though. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Copying here an issue that was not addressed in 11: In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch which, according to Foss and Larkin, "had developed a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism and a penchant for office forms and organizational charts" What is missing from this is a fact that has been covered by Geaves, Levine and Nelson: that after he took over he proceeded to dismantle that stuff and democratized and secularized the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I don't have the Geaves or Levine to hand, and the Nelson quote on the Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars page doesn't make it clear which period Nelson (published in 1979) is referring to. Downton mentions that there was a shift away from secular tendencies, i.e. in the opposite direction, after Mishler left in 1976. Seems a complex situation. Jayen466 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We also need more info activities on these years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) This all goes well-beyond the proposal. The internal workings of the DLM movement are better handled in that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Rawat's overhaul of DLM, paying off the debts and the replacement of Mishler are all important actions and must be included.Momento (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Just a few things that are missing from the period: Milton Glasser, New York Magazine art director interaction with PR, and poster design TV interview with Bill Beebee New York newspaper with headline "Prince of Peace arrives in Volkswagen" Incident at Hunter College Merv Griffin Show interview Nov 29, 1973 Birth of first daughter on March 1975, named "Premlata" Press conference in Lucknow April 1975 in which he was questioned about the family split Indian wedding ceremony and controversy with Indian authorities for its permission to held a public ceremony Arrival in Santiago de Chile, during Allende's last days before the Pinochet coup d'etat Feb 1976 invitation to address members of Congress at the Mayflower Hotel to commemorate the United States bicentennial. July 20, 1976, Washington D.C. Senator Strom Thurmond read into the United States Congressional Record "Prem Rawat's Inspirational Message to the United States Citizen's Congress" 1977 multiday events in a dozen cities in the United States and Europe, including events for 4,500 in Denver, 6,500 in Miami, and 10,500 in London. 1977 14,500 peple event in Palazzo dello Sporto in Rome 1977 audit by the IRS who found the DML to be in full compliance with the regulations governing charities Second daughter's birth in 1978 Falcon de-pressurizing incident on 1977 Gulfstream II lease in 1977 1979 20,000 multi-day outdoor event in Kissimmee, Florida People that have worked hard in finding sources for the "opulent" lifestyle section, may want to consider staring research on these aspects as well. Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) What are the sources for these incidents, besides Cagan? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) You seem to be a good researcher, so I am sure that you can find sources for these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, even those that argued strongly about Cagan's book agreed to use if for non contentious material, so I do not not understand why you are asking that question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Good points Jossi.Momento (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There must be more of Rawat's core activities during these years - the tours, the administration changes, the westernization etc.Momento (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) If editors want to have a detailed account of these years (1973-1980). There are many sources that have not been used for these topics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) That's a great idea and should be the subject of another proposal. This proposal concerns the lifestyle issues that we've been discussing for a month. Let's not get distracted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I think we are losing focus here and discussing at cross purposes. See the short discussion above between Rumiton and myself as to the purpose of this section. The new material that Jossi has listed may be chronologically relevant to the 'coming of age' section, but most of it is not relevant to PR's "Opulent/Sumptuous Lifestyle". Either we should focus on the nominated purpose of this section, to be inserted in the relevant article sections, or we abandon this section and paste the relevant drafts in a new Section 9 - Coming of Age.Savlonn (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) The idea to create an "opulent/sumptuous lifestyle" proposal was Will's idea. I think it is biased, unfair and POV. It has to fit into the "Coming of Age" section and in order to do that properly other material needs to be added.Momento (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, Savlonn asked about sources for the "opulent lifestyle" sentence in the intro. Once the sources were assembled it became clear that this is a major issue with the subject and required greater weight in the body of the article. Adding a paragraph on his lifestyle that was so frequently commented on does not require that other material be added. There's certainly more that could be said about this period of the subject's life and I look forward to separate proposals to cover that other material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) That proposal has already been made. We are working on the "Coming of Age" section in total.Momento (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Proposal7 is about the lifestyle issue. If an editor writes a draft that brings in other topics then that's "legal", but it isn't necessarily helpful. It's hard enought to get consensus on small issues - let's not try to get consensus on a major re-write that includes adding 18 incidents that have never been mentioned on this article before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I'm fine with Draft 12 going in as is, and for the rest to be addressed in a separate proposal. Jayen466 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The Pilarzyk paragraph I'm OK with [draft 12], at least enough progress to replace the current version of that section in the Rawat article, apart from this paragraph: Besides reporting on his perceived materialistic fixations, the media often criticized Rawat for his age and physical appearance. Premies' responses to the press reporting ranged from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. Positive comments about Rawat's movement came from youth culture figures such as anti-war activist Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. This is a double of what is currently in the User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media) proposal. It is an entire paragraph sourced to a single source (Pilarzyk), not even mentioned in the body of the text of the paragraph. It is not on "lifestyle" (so not really belonging to the current proposal and not discussed as such). I propose to get that paragraph out of the Proposal7#12 draft, and treat it in proposal 9, to see if we can reach consensus there. Otherwise I'm OK, with the usual provision: will probably need some ref finetuning when transferred to the Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (addition: I also think it best to keep the heliport material in as argued by Will below in #Draft 13 per prior consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) Francis, I see what you mean, but I think it may be several weeks, if not months, before we arrive at some sort of consensus on User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6 (Reception). In the meantime, let us have this paragraph here; we can revisit the question and consider transferring it to the Reception section as part of the Proposal 6 discussions. Jayen466 11:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not pressured for time. Above it was suggested to keep the non-lifestyle issues out of prop7. So either we settle all the issues as one continuum (prop6/prop7/prop9/...), either we agree to split off topics, and treat them by proposal of limited scope. I prefer the latter approach (which has its downsides too... but less so than the full frontal all at once approach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) What I am suggesting is to leave it in there for now, with an understanding that it can be moved to a more suitable place in Reception later. The idea of housing it in Reception appears to have merit to me (the same could even be said for the first sentence of the "wealth" paragraph), but it will be some time before we can accomplish that as part of Proposal 6/9. In the meantime, it would be nice to have this material in the article. Jayen466 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I don't agree. I only support draft 12 if the paragraph is left out of the coming of age section. The Pilarzyk material has been not in the article for years, a few days or weeks won't matter. It's a good encouragement not to weaken our attention on the other proposals. The Pilarzyk paragraph covers both the leaving India section and the coming of age section. So, having it only in one of those sections is a misrepresentation. As an alternative, I'd agree to have your summary of the Pilarzyk paragraph inserted as a first paragraph in Prem Rawat#Media (or: maybe better: between the first and the second sentence of the current content of the media section), at the same time when the rest of Draft 12 is implemented in the coming of age section. I suppose you can live with that too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC) If all it is needed to stop a proposal from moving forward is an ultimatum such as my way or the highway, then this mediation has no chances to succeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) So I understand you drop your "my way or the highway" ultimatum ("This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article" - see #Draft 11). I think we can continue without the Pilarzyk para included in prop7 or the Coming of age section. The Pilarzyk para is currently included in all drafts of prop9 (User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)), so I don't see any problem for this material soon being included in the article in a place where we all can agree about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Other suggestions This draft needs more material. Specifically Rawat's touring, downsizing DLM, number of followers etc. I'll find some material.Momento (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Example - In July Rawat and his wife travelled to Copenhagen to meet with 8,000 followers, an event that marked his wife's first public appearance & Following the birth of his second child Rawat began to tour without his family, speaking in places as various as Swaziland, Peru and Frankfurt. [123]By the end of the 70s DLM, while growing little in the United States with 10,000 to 12,000 active members, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America.[175]& By 1975 Rawat's message was available in 58 countries on six continents. All important info for this section.Momento (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 13 Perhaps editors might list points that have not been properly covered, giving refs. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I found an excellent article that cover these years. I will email it to you as I will be quite busy in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) All right, thanks. I will hasten to my mailbox. Rumiton (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) What's the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) There are several problems with this draft: 1) It deletes all mention of the helipad controversy that we agreed upon months ago. 2) It doesn't fully summarize the criticisms of Mishler, Hand, et al. 3) It relies too much on Cagan for self-serving information. 4) It mentions a media "fixation" on his physical appearance without describing in neutral terms that appearance. Further, that material is sourced to Pilarzyk, but I don't see him mentioning a fixation on physical appearance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) We certainly did not "agree on" the helipad controversy. You pushed it into the article which was then sent to mediation. There was never any agreement on including this absurd irrelevancy. Rumiton (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (1) Consensus can change; even the LA Times described it as a "neighborhood dispute" (2) The only difference I see compared to current article status is the use of "predicting" instead of "warning" (3) I am not sure what is cited to Cagan alone in this draft. Could Rumiton or Will clarify? (4) Pilarzyk refers to the "physical condition of the guru" (with a string of references), we could use that expression "physical condition" verbatim to resolve the concern. (Pilarzyk does not proffer any more detailed information on said "physical condition" either.) What Pilarzyk doesn't mention is "age"; if we could have a ref for that, that would help. --Jayen466 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 1) Yes but I don't see a consensus to delete it. We agreed on it only a couple of months ago. Nothing has changed since then. 2) You're right that it is similar to what's in the text now. It is incomplete, but we can address that in a separate proposal along with some of the non-lifestyle changes that have been suggested. 3) The material about touring the world at the end is sourced to Cagan. Cagan is also used, along with two other sources, as a cite for During 1977, many returned to ashram life, and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs. What does Cagan add there that the other sources don't already provide? 4) Pilarzyk gives his sources - so we can quote one of them to indicate what about his physical condition was discussed. It's a disservice to readers to mention that there was an issue but not say what the issues was. We have neutral sources, including the subject's own physician, discussing his weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· We don't need a consensus to delete it. It was never put there by consensus. You need to get a consensus if you want to include it now. Rumiton (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) We need a consensus for any changes. The heliport material was drafted by Jayen, Jossi, Momento, and myself and no one removed it from the article, so it had a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Can someone, out of interest, show me the diff for the content that was added to an article that was in question? Was it prior to the mediation, or within it? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The discussion was here: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 32#Malibu house, proposed text. As far as I can tell, the material was added here: [65], on March 4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for locating that old discussion. I had forgotten more than I remembered having forgotten. :-) Jayen466 09:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Momewnto and I both objected to this inclusion. But you are saying that unless we deleted it from the article, there was a consensus? OK, I won't make that mistake again. I just deleted it. There was/is no consensus for such an irrelevancy. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Rumiton, please don't disrupt just to make a point. We're now in mediation and have agreed to not make major changes without consensus. That's the point of this discussion. I've restored the content pending the outcome of this or other proposals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) So you have it all aranged? If something isn't deleted, it must be there by consensus, and if it is, it is disrupting Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Please do not start an edit war. Obviously there is content in the article that people don't agree with, it wouldn't be at mediation, for nearly 3 months now. All of you agreed to not make edits that didn't have a consensus, and the only person that has made any recent, significant changes has been me, implementing proposals that have been discussed, and a consensus has been reached on. Remember that the article is being mediated on in it's present state, whether or not it's the wrong version. Resist the temptation to make edits that you know editors will disagree with, and I'm sure that things will be resolved more peacefully. Steve Crossin (contact) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I'll look up the references for the points I made.Thanks.Momento (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I am opposed to now striking out just parts of drafts from the article, I did not agree that "some" of draft 13 should be used. Either draft 13 is in, or Draft 13 is out until it's worked on further. Also, while the LA Times described the helipad issue as a "neighbourhood dispute" they also talked about the discussions about it with the City county (oops, #1), to drop the part about being in conflict with the city county (oops #2) officials, and only leave in the part about a "neighbourhood dispute" completely changes the way it looks to the reader. I'm opposed to that too. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC) While the dispute may have been local, it was reported half a world away in The Times of London. To correct Maelifique, it was a matter of the County of Los Angeles (and also the powerful California Coastal Commission), not the city of Los Angeles. L.A. County is the most populous in the U.S., with almost 10 million inhabitants. It also has the most billionaires of any county, something like 40, not to mention the thousands of other moguls and celebrities. Yet none of them have private heliports. A member of the county's planning department had to go on leave partly as a result of the favors he gave people, including helping Rawat with the heliport. And the "neighbourhood dispute" wasn't just two neighbours fighting over a hedge. Full page ads were taken out in the local newspaper, and followers went door-to-door in Malibu to collect petition signatures supporting the heliport. It was obviously a big deal to the subject. But we discussed all of this back in February, and nothing has changed. I hate to think that a few months after agreeing on these proposals as part of mediation, the same editors will come back delete things with which they don't agree without first seeking a new consensus. If that's the case it makes this mediation kind of pointless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Troublesome terms I notice unnecessary arguments above caused by some misunderstandings. Pardon my pedantry. Pejorative. In the context, "derogatory" is probably the better word. Cliche. I suspect that "glitch" was the word intended. (I might be wrong here.) Vanity publishing. Does not mean publishing vain or self-praising books, it refers to getting books printed and distributed with all costs born by the author. It really means the same as "self-publishing," but is a term invoked insultingly to suggest that the book would have had no chance of commercial success on its own merits if the author had not footed the bills, i.e. publishing would have been in vain. I think the commercial success of Peace is Possible and its translations rule out this derogatory phrase. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating, but useless information. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) The author does not seem to have footed the bills, and by all measures it seems that Cagan's book has had comemrcial success, otherwsie why in earth it will be translated and published in other countries by reputable publishers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Speculation does not really have a place here. I have a theory about who paid and why it was translated too, but you won't like mine either, and neither belong here. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.0) updated with draft 11 and draft 5 material; integrated the recently rewritten marriage paragraph from the main article; plus my own tweaks, additions and other updates (e.g. a reference that the "vocal criticisms" by ex-members were reported in the press from the mid 70s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding the emancipated minor issue: "In May 1974 Rawat received permission from a judge to get married".[52] needs to be changed to stay close to the source, to - Still a minor, Rawat needed a court order to obtain a license to marry without parental permission. In May 1974 he obtained such court order from a Juvenile court in Colorado.[52]Momento (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Moved remark to Talk:Prem Rawat#Emancipated minor --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.1) Updated the draft according to the only remark in six days. [66] Proposing to go live with draft 4 v2.1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, please let's finish this already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Absolutely not. That version is full of problems which were partially fixed in later versions, though more work is still required. Why are they being ignored? Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC) What problems are there with this version? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Re the vases, and other points, see my post above 12:46, 7 July 2008. Jayen466 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Agree with Rumiton. This draft is full of bias whcih Francis has not addressed.Momento (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Please specify the problems so they can be addresed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Written from an entirely biased POV. Probably impossible to fix.Momento (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC) If you can't offer any specific objections to the text then please don't object to posting it. We're here to draft text. Just saying "I don't like it" or words to that effect is uselesly obstructive. You're not even saying what the bias is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC) The only articulate complaint regards the vases: Jayen refers to his prior comments: Jayen 12:46, 7 July 2008: "...I doubt the status of Rolling Stone magazine as an RS here..." Francis 22:35, 24 July 2008: "...The Rolling Stone article is an average reliable source...", thus far unchallenged at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published? So, no, referring to prior comments is not sufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.2) Rephrased "vases" sentence (closer to source) [67] I see no other articulate complaints. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC) How many do you need? That draft is riddled with biased statements. The word "wealthy" for one. I recall that his father had bought a car, and he once talked about obtaining a fridge, both evidence of "wealth" in 1960s India, but not what would be conjured by the word in the minds of English-speaking readers in 2008. The mention of the problems of the DLM, "rampant titleism" etc, contains no reference to the fact that he worked to fix them, as per sources. "...thanks to contributions" is a POV phrase. "...frequent trips around the globe" likewise. It goes on in the same vein. I suggest we look at Draft 13, which is an attempt to remedy these issues. Rumiton (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding Rumiton's first point, we have more than one source that says the subject's father was wealthy, or that the subject was raised amid luxury. Please note that India has more English speakers than Australia, for example, and we're writing for all readers regardless of their nation. It isn't biased to report what reliable sources say. Regarding the last two points, I don't see what POV is involved. Can you explain? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC) As I've said before, and I am not going to spell it out again, it's above for anyone to re-read, the vases thing is a WP:REDFLAG to me. I will not agree to any version of this going into the article. Likewise, I am against the tax-free comment for the reasons stated earlier. The jumble of premie statements does not work for me either. Let's rather work on Draft 13. Sorry. --Jayen466 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Why is the vase issue a redflag? The tax issue was reported in reliable sources and isn't disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC) How many sources have reported it? I am only aware of one, Rolling Stone magazine. Jayen466 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reported which? The tax issue was reported by the wires services, etc. The vases issue was reported in one reliable source. What makes it so extraordinary that more sources are needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) It seems apt to cause revulsion or indignation in the reader of this BLP. Jayen466 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The tax issue is not disputed, but I object to the way it is used, as per my earlier comment above: The mention that some vehicles were "reportedly bought tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church" I find inflammatory. To me, this passage reads like <vernacular> "The cheeky bastard! He got rich off his followers, and he didn't even have to pay sales tax. Let's hate him!" </vernacular> The fact is, if the U.S. government granted the DLM tax-exempt status, and the DLM used it, they were in their rights and we shouldn't be making a fuss over it because we don't like the DLM and are looking for ammunition to shoot them and Rawat down. At least this is how I will feel about it until and unless someone can demonstrate that there are reliable sources reporting that there was an investigation which found the DLM guilty of using its tax status inappropriately. A mere allegation that came to nought is irrelevant. Jayen466 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The text currently says: Some of these items were reportedly put at Rawat's disposition tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church. We have reports that the goods were bought tax-free by the church, and were for the subject's use. How would you suggest conveying that info in a better way? As for the vases issue, it directly concerns the subject's approach to material goods. It appears to be presented neutrally. We can't help it if incidents from the subject's life affect readers one way or another. Wikipedia is not censored. We could as easily say that reporting other incidents may be apt to cause sympathy on the part of readers, but that wouldn't be a reason to exclude them from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC) A single mention of an anecdote ascribed to an unnamed source is not enough in my opinion to satisfy WP:REDFLAG, as well as various WP:BLP requirements. As for the DLM's tax-exempt status, we could mention it at that point in the timeline where the DLM gained that status. To expand on this, WP:BLP states explicitly, Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. — WP:BLP In my opinion, including this otherwise unreported claim from a 34-year-old Rolling Stone article would make us "the primary vehicle for the spread of a titillating claim about Rawat's life". WP:BLP further states, Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. — WP:BLP, emboldening present in the original The inclusion of this anecdote allegedly recounted by an unnamed person to an unspecified listener is not justified, given its lack of relevance in the existing literature about Rawat, which we are required to summarise fairly, giving WP:DUE weight to any and all accounts available to us in reliable sources. To sum up, I don't think Wikipedia would become a better encyclopedia by including it. We are here to write a fair, unbiased (and conservative, given WP:BLP) encyclopedia article, not a journalistic, cutting-edge exposé. Jayen466 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Before we get to the issue of satisfying REDFLAG, we first have to deal with whether REDFLAG is triggered. Considering the many sourcs we have which describe the playful and harmful lilas of Guru Maharaj Ji, it is not surprising or extraordinary that he would act as described in the anecdote. I don't see that the anecdote is titillating. It does not allege that he did anything illegal or immoral. Furthermore, the Rolling Stone is a highly regarded magazine, whose journalists have won numerous Pulitzer prizes.[68] So I don't think that REDFLAG is triggered, and if it is the it is satisfied by the fact that the matter is published in a highly reliable source. As for the new issue of BLP, that policy does not prevent the inclusion of matters that have been reported in reliable sources. The anecdote neither mocks nor disparages the subject. As for the taxes, the investigation was over whether the use of the tax exemption to purchase personal itmes for Maharaj Ji and the DLM executives was legal, not whether they did it. There's no question that they used the DLM to purchase cars and property for the guru's use without paying sales tax. Yes, we could handle this issue by a) mentioning that the DLM had tax exempt status and B) when we mention the purchase of cars and property mention that they were purchased by the tax-exempt DLM. I don't think we need to make a big deal about it, but it is factual. Are those your only concerns about this draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) There have also been a couple of well publicised libel cases against Rolling Stone, where it was found that articles included entirely fabricated information. Even if this were not so, I am not likely to change my mind on this issue. As for the gift/tax issue, how many sources are there actually that mention gifts for Rawat being bought under tax-exempt status? As I said above, the present staccato jumble of premie statements does not work for me either. I'll try to rewrite it. Jayen466 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The only libel case I see concering Rolling Stone that I see was the DARE case, which concerned the notorious journalist Stephen Glass. The libel case was dismissed. I see that the magazine is used as a source in literally thousands of Wikipedia articles. I'll post a request for comment on WP:RSN to see what the community thinks about it. How many sources do we need? I only see one comment by a premie. How can one comment be a staccato jumble? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) See WP:RSN#Rolling Stone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The case against Rolling Stone was dismissed, but this does not change the fact that the statements printed in the Rolling Stone article were fabricated. The case against the journalist was not dismissed, he was found guilty, and Rolling Stone only employed fact checkers to verify what they had printed after the shit hit the fan, and then issued a string of corrections. The writer had invented people and conversations. Rolling Stone were cleared because they had not acted with malice. There was also at least one other libel case against Rolling Stone that was settled out of court, brought by a Mr Flynn, who Rolling Stone falsely alleged was a member of the Ku-Klux-Klan. (They had picked up a story from elsewhere without verifying it. The originators of that story were subsequently sued as well, and the decision went against them.) Jayen466 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding the Rolling Stones - please make your case at WP:RSN. Since your opposition is to the source in general (rather than to the specific journalist or story) it should be handled at a community-wide level. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The only response so far is that Rolling Stone is a highly reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· I've added a (lengthy) note on the background, and have also flagged the issue on the BLP noticeboard. --Jayen466 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The responses on both noticeboards seem to approve of the "vases" material as Francis drafted it. Are there any further objections to that part? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The vase story will need a lot of context if it is to be included.Momento (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Such as? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe this from Galanter "He was after all, still a teenager, not above spraying his coterie with shaving cream for fun. Such pranks led them to speak of his "heavenly playfulness." He began dressing in western clothes and adopted a luxurious lifestyle that included setting up residence in a mansion and being ferried about in a limousine".Momento (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The issue here is his view of materialism. If you want to get into his lilas we have lots of sources for those. I agree that we should include more on them. Shall I post sourcescovering them and then we can decide which to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) OTOH, it'd be better to leave off the extra lila anecdotes as those are lkely to get contentious. I think you'd suggested adding Mishler's complaint that the subject didn't act appropriately to the next paragraph - that should be sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen, did you have any objections to the vases that haven't been answered in the noticeboards? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Well, Will, I still don't like it. The proposed sentence goes: According to Richard Levine in Rolling Stone a premie described that in the early 1970s Rawat fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." The sentence does not tell us an awful lot, except that Rawat (or his brother) on an occasion allegedly shot at some vases in his backyard. We don't know what "prized" means, who assessed that, whether they were qualified, and we don't know whether "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions" is the invention of the premie – as we've seen, premies had a penchant for inventing all sorts of adventurous explanations for happenings – or whether this is something that the young Rawat is actually supposed to have said. To sum up, let's rather put in that he pushed people into pools, if we have several RS for that. Jayen466 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What does pushing people into swimming pools have to do with material possessions? Do premies have a penchant for inventing explanations? The only other anecdote about materialism I've read that is as good is the one about the subject's Mercedes getting hit by a follower's VW. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What does "good" mean here? Are we here to entertain people with "good" anecdotes? ;-) Re the penchant, we have reliable sources indicating that premies would ascribe coincidences to Rawat's doing, or, putting it differently, that they experienced synchronicities that they felt were connected to their involvement with him. Likewise, we have sources stating that premies were fond of interpreting Rawat's actions, and trying to see hidden meaning in his behavior, such as that he might be trying to teach them something by his actions. Do you agree? Jayen466 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What sources say that premies invent explanations? As for anecdotes, we're here to inform and interest readers. Anecdotes can do both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) "Invent explanations" were my words. But you just quoted such a source illustrating the imputation of meaning to me in RS/N. Worshipping the Absurd contains further examples of premies investing experiences with personal meaning where no such meaning is made explicit, or none would be apparent to any outside observer. Soul Rush by Collier contains examples: "Knowledge is working so powerfully in the world, I don't know how anybody can miss it." she quotes one premie as saying. Premies saw meaning where others saw none. Davies' comments about the pieing that we discussed the other day are another example. Etc. So premies saw deeper meaning in Rawat's actions where someone else might have seen none. That is what I meant. Jayen466 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The story simply is imprecise. It is hearsay. We don't know if those were Ming vases or vases someone got from a jumble sale, we're not sure if BBJ or GMJ did the shooting, we don't know if Rawat said anything about "the worthlessness of material possessions" or whether that was some premie's clever commentary after witnessing or hearing that story. It's a useless anecdote. If we want to cover Rawat's teaching re material possessions, we can quote him. Jayen466 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The draft clearly says that this is being told by a follower, so readers would not be given the mistaken impression that this was part of the official canon. The views of followers are significant. If we have an adequate source we could add that followers invest experiences with personal meaning. I'm beginning to think that a shooting-gallery approach is being taken to this material: every time an objection is addressed a fresh one pops up. Folks have responded on the WP:BLPN that this doesn't seem to be inappropriate. The source has been vetted on WP:RSN. What more do we need to do? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) What more do we need to do? Simple: Make this article an encyclopedic one. Be judicious in the use of sources. Not adding content just because it is available. Apply good editorial judgment. Etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Is there a policy reason? So far editors on two noticeboards have reviewed the issue and found no problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Do premies have a penchant for inventing explanations? What does that mean? After your complaint about Rumiton I would held you to higher standards as it relates to comments about editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Who are you addressing? I was questioning Jayen's assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Again, Jossi- who are you addressing in your comment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The vases/Rolling Stone issue is marked as "resolved" at WP:RSN#Rolling Stone: "we appear to have reached the conclusion that the suggested draft is an appropriate use of this particular source". Moving on is the message. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen's re-writes Here is the re-write: On several occasions, reporters enquired of Rawat why he did not give his Rolls Royce away, in order to alleviate hunger or poverty. In response, Rawat explained that he only had one; once that was given away, people would still be hungry and poor, and he wouldn't have another one to give them. In addition, he stated that he gave something that was more valuable than money. His followers saw no conflict between his worldly and spiritual riches either. "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman explained. "He isn't saying, abandon the material world. He's saying it is our attachment to it that is wrong." In their view, the messiah had come as a king this time, rather than as a beggar. Other premies asserted that he did not want the gifts, but that people simply gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West. Jayen466 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) In the same paragraph, I would lose the sentence "Sources close to Rawat's mother said that his materialistic lifestyle was one of the reasons she disowned him.[63][64]" Instead, I would include a mention of her complaints in the sentence where we first mention her disowning him, so the new version of that sentence would be: She publicly disowned him in 1975, citing disagreement with his "materialistic lifestyle," and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM. Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples. Jayen466 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) This passage: Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[65] and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".[66] Critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers.[67] disregards what we know from Dettmers' statements, who states that the DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat into their own accounts. Once these private gifts were allocated correctly, it was no longer the case that an unjustifiably large amount of DLM moneys was diverted to Rawat's personal use. Jayen466 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Let's settle the Rolling Stone issue before tossing it out. Regarding your last two excerpts, I think the re-write about the mother is an improvement. I don't understand your objection to the last one, which is sourced reliably. Are you proposing we use forum postings as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Are people okay with the rewrite in the first excerpt? Jayen466 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) No, I am not suggesting we use forum postings as sources. But you allowed the other day that there's value in reading forum postings, user pages, self-published sources, etc., in order to understand the background and to learn about topics we may not know of otherwise. So, knowing what we do – for we have no reason to doubt Dettmers' account – and acting with good conscience to get this thing as right as we can, it seems to me that we can choose not to reproduce that particular bit of criticism; we still have the criticism that Rawat's opulent lifestyle was funded by followers' donations, which remains unaffected by this issue of how the DLM accounted for gifts to Rawat personally. Jayen466 11:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Interesting point Jayen about the finances. I am also aware that money given specifically to Rawat was used to finance DLM. In fact, without Rawat DLM would not have received a penny. I like your rewrite so far.Momento (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) This article should be written based on what we find in reliable sources. If folks think that forum postings are reliable then that's fine, but thus far that hasn't been the standard. In the passage in quesiton we don't say that money was diverted for the subject's personal use - we say that some folks made the accusation. There is no question that they made that allegation, or that it was reported. That's as far as we're going. We can add the forum posting as a conflicting POV if folks agree to use foums as sources. Otherwise there's no need for a change in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I think it's bad encyclopedic writing to report on accusations and then not to report on the outcome of ensuing investigations, just because there is no RS available that bothered to report the outcome. In this case, we know the outcome and know these specific accusations were unfounded. Responsible and NPOV encyclopedic writing would balance the accusation, or drop it if this is not possible for lack of sources. Jayen466 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The needs to be more about Rawat's attitude to "material possessions" and this from Melton - "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader". Momento (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) And let's make sure this is in "Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission.Momento (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) There are two problems with "Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission", firstly it is now anachronistic and must be paraphrased to give it chronological consistency, secondly it is an expression of opinion, not separately sourced by Melton, thus a further level of paraphrase is required, so we would end up with something like "writing in 197?, J. Godon Melton observed that Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission." Frankly I don't see this as being very meaningful, it doesn't tell us anything about Rawat and adds nothing to the BLP, and even if applied to the DLM article it stands out as being a single observation about an organisation/movement that in terms of levels of support was patently in decline as is demonstrated by numbers of adherents stated by other reliable sources.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen states we know from Dettmers' statements, who states that the DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat into their own accounts. Once these private gifts were allocated correctly, it was no longer the case that an unjustifiably large amount of DLM moneys was diverted to Rawat's personal use. That is a rather novel interpretation of what Mike Dettmers wrote.It is the case that the IRS accepted the argumented present by Dettmers in 1975, that donations gifted in the name of Guru Maharaj Ji were legally the personal property of Prem Rawat, however that is far from being "DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat". Dettmers makes it abundantly clear that these monies were held by DLM for purely practical purposes - Rawat as a fourteen/fifteen year old non American was not in a position to cash US cheques made out to Guru Maharaj Ji. Further, while Dettmers was arguing the case for Rawat's personal entitlement, there was a notable absence of any representative of the Divine Light Mission - a public charity - arguing for its entitelment to funds which were donated in the name of its Chief Minister, which is was how Guru Maharaj Ji was legally connected to the organisation and how prior to the 1975 IRS audit Rawat had his lifestyle underwritten directly from funds gifted to the organisation. There is no indication that any 'repayment' was made to the US DLM when the personal funds were transfered to Rawat's control, nor was any opportunity afforded to Mata Ji and/or Satpal to make a claim on funds that were donated to the head of the Indian Divine Light Mission, in his capacity as head of that Mission, i.e to Guru Maharaj Ji, not to Prem Pal Singh Rawat. Further although it was Dettmers' strategy that the separation of Rawat's personal funds from the DLM funds would halt the diversion of unjustified amounts for Rawat's personal use it is clear from the creation of initiatives like the Jets Acquisition Committee that diversion of organisational effort to achieve funds to support Rawat's lifestyle' continued well after 1975, and Dettmers ultimately acknowledged Rawat's personal greed continued to be fed by his followers and the organisations. How much any of this can inform the WP articles, I'm unclear about but I think Jayen is arguing from a point of misunderstanding.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Are you saying if someone made a check out to "Guru Maharaj Ji", it was really for the DLM, or Mata Ji? Jayen466 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Well I can’t give a definitive answer for each of what were, as far as I understand, many thousands of mainly small contributions. Certainly my own memory of the UK situation in the 72 to 75 period is that no clear distinction between Guru and organisation was given to the ‘punters’ and the operative assumption before 1975 was that gifts to the Guru were for the support of his work, not for his accrual of personal wealth. However that really doesn’t help us in writing a Wikipedia article and we have to make a reasoned assessment of the material that is available. For what it's worth (in WP:POV terms) I think this page [69]covers the territory well Mishler and Hand clearly identified Rawat’s wish for personal wealth as an issue that impacted on the DLM, and all the available sources indicate a conflation of the Guru with the organisation(s) even crediting Guru Maharaj Ji with the capacity to exert organisational control despite his status as a Minor and his lack of legal/constitutional position within the organisations. If Dettmers is taken to be accurate, we do have the statement that prior to 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji was listed as the Chief Minister of the Divine Light Mission Inc. Church. Based upon that information we can make a reasoned comparison with other religious leaders who have a title and or special name relative to their role in an organisation. For instance someone supporting the Catholic church who writes a cheque out to Il Papa or the Bishop of Rome or Holy Father or Supreme Pontif, would not usually be understood to be conferring a payment on Joseph Alois Ratzinger for him to buy icecream or a sports car. Equally a supporter of a local Synagogue giving a payment to Rabbi x might expect the money to go toward the purposes of the Synagogue, not on Scotch and Cigars for the Rabbi. The position of Mata Ji is significant because she had clear parental responsibility for Prem until early 1974, if the sums accrued in the DLM Inc. bank accounts until that date were actually gifted to Prem personally (and some may have been), rather than in his representative role as Chief Minister of DLM Inc. then Mata Ji should have been given access to those funds to manage on her child’s behalf. From Prem’s point of view everything worked out very conveniently – the collected sums were protected as Charity money inaccessible to Mata Ji, they were also inaccessible to the Indian DLM, which might reasonably have had a claim to donations gifted to its ‘satguru’, and bizarrely the sums were also inaccessible to DLM Inc. even when the organisation faced financial meltdown after the Millenium fiasco. Once Mata Ji, the Indian DLM and Mishler were sidelined, Charity protection was removed and Prem became a millionaire in his own right, the only gain to DLM Inc. from the Dettmers’ arrangement seems to have been that it was relieved of any liability for the Trancas Canyon property, but Prem retained personal control and or ownership of everything else that had been supplied to him via DLM Inc. without any compensation being paid to DLM Inc. I don’t see any simple, well sourced description of this history being possible, however I also see nothing in what Dettmers wrote, nor in a reasoned assessment of the position that Dettmers describes, that undermines the Draft 4 (v2.2)text: “Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[65] and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".[66] Critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers.[67]”--Nik Wright2 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Will read the referenced material tomorrow. The phrase "complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use" I think is undermined by Dettmers saying that much money made out to GMJ was paid into DLM accounts for a period of time. As for donations only being for the work, I think premies can't have failed to notice Rawat arriving in Rolls Royces; he wrote them a thank-you letter for the house they had got him and his family, etc. I think people knew very well and at the time were fine with it. Jayen466 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen, I think you are making unjustified assumptions, about what ‘people’ knew, about their expectations and about their understanding of the processes of what, was by then developing into a cultish organisation. You will not find any published accounts in the material targeted at premies despite DLM being presented as having ‘members’, those members had no means of empowerment. That most premies were blissfully (sic) unaware of what was going on can not be equated with being “fine with it” – you can’t express dissatisfaction if you are not given an indication of what is wrong, or even that there is something wrong. Mishler and Hand eventual revealed some of the problems but many premies, particularly those outside of the West Coast community never heard anything about Mishler or Hand other than they were ‘disgruntled’ and had misunderstood Guru Maharaj Ji’s message. Even so there was a major loss in support coincident with first Mata Ji’s criticisms, and then revelations by Mishler and others; of course the loss of support could be explained by other factors – but the point is support was lost when individuals, a large number of whom statistically, must have been among the donors of finance, had new information available, suggesting that in fact a very large number of supporters were not ‘fine’ with what had been happening, once they got to know about it. I have no personal experience of the Malibu property acquisition, however I do recall the fundraising carried out by officials of the UK Divine Light Mission charity over the acquisition of Rawat’s UK residence. The implication was that a property would be bought (and owned) by DLM, in fact the funds raised were used to rent a property which was eventually purchased by the same holding company that owns Rawat’s Malibu estate [70]. Explanations of ownership were provided on a rumour based ‘hush hush’ basis, in the case of the UK residence, as with ownership of Rolls Royces etc, the most common being – it was bought by a ‘wealthy supporter’ – a rock star, a film star, an entrepreneur – who couldn’t be named for reasons of modesty. Of course the premies were far too trusting and passive in their ‘membership’ of DLM but that was the whole point, the movement was specifically ‘disempowering’ of participation beyond robotic fulfilment of leadership diktat. In that context ‘fine with it’ could apply to every crack addict who has just acquired a hit.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) To Jayen, remember that we aren't saying that money was diverted. We saying that Mishler et al. said it was diverted. Nothing that Dettmer writes now undermines the fact that those things were said then. Mishler's assertion was reported and Dettmer's was not. An internet forum posting doesn't negate a UPI interview almost 30 years earlier. It's interesting, but if we're not going to report it then there's not mich to discuss about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) It says nowhere that we have to report every accusation ever made, regardless of whether they were justified or not. Jayen466 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The Mishler et al. statements comprise a widely-reported view of the subject, and NPOV does require that we include all significant viewpoints. Unless Dettmers' forum posting is a reliable source then it really means nothing. (We can't have it both ways). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I think we need to lose the vice president (mentioned neither by Melton nor in Time), and the reference nos. 65 and 66 need to go together, at the end of the sentence. Then it should be covered by the sources. As it happens, what is cited to Garson in Time does not contradict Dettmers. Jayen466 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Nik Wright2 Comments on Draft 4 V2.2 V2.2 is IMO almost a completed work, although some of the prose is a bit tortuous, however there are two substantive points that I have concern about. Line 1. “In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch.” This doesn’t accord with the precise description given by Melton - “ he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation” the term ‘Branch’ has particular meaning and substituting it for Melton’s very specific use of “American corporation” is not encyclopaedic in this context and I suggest sticking exactly to what Melton wrote in this case without any paraphrase. Line 30. “Among others, Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM in the United States and former president of the business side of the mission.” The phrase “business side of the Mission” is confusing – Mishler was President of Divine Light Mission Inc. which ran everything DLM related in the US, apart that is from what was in Rawat’s personal financial control. The various ‘for profit’ subsidiaries of DLM Inc. were all legally responsible to the DLM board, over which Mishler ‘presided’ so there was no ‘separate’ ‘business side’ and unless there is a source which specifies Mishler’s role differently from him being president of DLM Inc. the text should simply read “co-founder and President of DLM in the United States, together with former DLM vice President Robert Hand ……..”--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Re. "...almost a completed work..." not my view, nor my intention (tx for the compliment though): all what is needed is an improvement over the current version: if we're aiming at something everyone would consider a "completed" work, nothing is going to improve. And Wikipedia works differently: little steps of improvement, without an artificial endpoint of completion, that's the wiki system. Re. line 1: seems better to make it precise then, keeping to Melton's wording. Re. line 30: "business side of the Mission" refers to the wording used by the source: "... Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission--Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. ..." (bolding added) I'd also refer to Haan, who explains the structure of the mission in a quite separate "commercial" and a "spiritual" hierarchy (both topped by Rawat): the former managed by directors, the latter represented by initiators (p. 45). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Countries & continents - Gifts As I've said before this proposal needs more info on what Rawat was doing as a teacher as opposed to what the media thought he should be doing. For instance - "By 1975 Rawat's message had spread to 58 countries on six continents" . And more context "Gifts for Rawat were quite common since expression of thanks to him, as guru, were backed by years of Indian tradition".Momento (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Do you have that spread of message information in a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Cagan is reliable in the absence of any contradictory material from a source we might consider even more reliable.Momento (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) No, it is not. It is a questionable source. See our discussion on the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Given PIP's QS status, this statement could be seen as unduly self-serving, so would need corroboration by another source. Jayen466 10:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The Dwonton statement, on the other hand, we should look at including. Jayen466 11:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) PIP doesn't qualify as a QS. A QS is a source with a "poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". None of the publishers or the author "have a poor reputation for fact-checking". Nor does PIP " express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". And in this case statistics are neutral.Momento (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) If you want to discuss the status of PIP please use the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Countries (bolding added): 1973 "The movement boasted 480 centers in thirty-eight countries around the world..." 1976 "... 55 countries around the world, ..." "There are ashrams operating [...] in almost every state in the United States and in over fifty countries." 1983 "[Rawat] has taken his message to more than 50 countries..." 1990 "The mission is [in] 53 countries..." 1993 "The Divine Light Mission (the original name of Elan Vital) was founded in India in 1960. Since that time, Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji) has inspired a worldwide movement that is active in approximately 55 countries." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Well done. Jayen466 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Brush fire Am I wrong, or is Cagan the only source for the content on the 1978 brush fire in Malibu? I've been looking for press reports about the event, but could find none. Removing the material: don't say it didn't happen, but lacking notability/reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Well, found an oblique mentioning of the brushfire in a L.A. Times article written a few months after the fire, so I added that reference, but requesting better sources for the move to Miami Beach, and for the 1980 activities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The fire was quite notable, but a little scorching damage wouldn't have merited reporting. Here's a bit from a report printed in Toronto (!): Until a two-day fire swept across 25,000 acres and destroyed more than 160 homes here, Malibu was the lush playground of the rich and famous, the epitome of California living. The mansion retreats of Buddy Hackett, Ali MacGraw and Clint Walker lined either the beach or the rough Santa Monica mountains facing the Pacific. Yesterday many of the residents of this exclusive beach community were searching the charred remains of their homes, some of which cost more than $1-million, in an effort to retrieve belongings that may have escaped the devastation of one of the worst brush fires in Los Angeles since 1970. The homes of singer Neil Young and actor Nick Nolte were destroyed. Actor Jack Lemmon's beachfront home was damaged, as were many others along the 10-mile stretch on Pacific Coast Highway about 20 miles north of Santa Monica. Among the lucky homeowners were actor Steve McQueen and Los Angeles Ram's owner Carol Rosenbloom, whose homes barely escaped the fire. Malibu and the Mandeville Canyon residential area, which includes the Pacific Palisades, were declared a state disaster area by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday. Federal aid is expected for the estimated 1,000 non-celebrities who were left homeless by the fires, which swept Los Angeles County on Monday and Tuesday. -"Brush fires ruin retreats of the rich" The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 26, 1978. pg. P.15 Mandeville Canyon is far from Trancas, but fires hop and jump around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Note that the report of a "lavish hill top estate" comes after the fire damage and the photo in Dart's article looks like a building site.Momento (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The property was referred to as an "estate" as early as 1976. and was called a "mansion" in 1975. Is Momento saying that between 1974 and 1975 the "little house" mentioned in PIP was replaced by a mansion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I would imagine that the "little house" was renovated to accommodate Rawat's family as well as the DLM HQ.Momento (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) It's fine to imagine, but when many reliable sources say one thing and one questionable source says something different then the simplest approach, Occam's razor, is that the reliable sources are correct and the questionable source is wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC) By all means call it a "beautiful little home", "home base", "mansion", "lavish estate" etc, we just need to make sure that the description are dated, so that readers see the evolution.Momento (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) No, we don't have any reliable sources for an "evolution". So far as I recall, the only reliable sources we have for changes to the place are about the installation of the heliport, but that wasn't until about 1980. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Actually just looking at Mark Forster's '79 article, he calls it "Divine Light Mission's palatial walled estate", so that will need to go in.Momento (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Why does it "need to go in"? What distinction is there between the home of Guru Maharaj Ji and the home of the spiritual head of the DLM? They were the same person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Because it makes it clear that he didn't own it which is not clear the way Francis has written it.Momento (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's clear from the Forster article who owns the property either. Most sources don't distinguish the sutble differences between DLM and Guru Maharaj Ji. But if you want more from Forter there's plenty in there that we can add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Rereading the draft I think it's left properly ambiguous. While in one place it is described as "Rawat's Malibu home", it is undisputed that he made it his home, regardless of who held the deed. In any case, we may have to delete that sentence if we can't find a reliable source for the brushfire damaging the buildings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Chronologically, DLM bought the property for use as an HQ and a residence for Rawat and Rawat moved there. Since DLM purchased it and owned it, it probably shouldn't be in this article at all, only that Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974.Momento (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC) It was his home, regardless of who held the deed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I have never heard from anyone at anytime that the Malibu estate was purchased for the purposes of being "DLM headquarters." Rawat's thank you letter to premies for his new home was published in DLM's Divine Times, Vol.3, Issue 4, dated October 15, 1974. In it Maharaji states: "By the united efforts of all of you, Durga Ji and myself have moved to a much more suitable residence in Los Angeles. It is a large, beautiful house with all of the necessary arrangements to facilitate my work." He signs it "Sant Ji Maharaj." So, perhaps that may put to rest any speculation about the house on the Malibu bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It's prime real estate in a very wealthy community. Also, no one ever has been free to go to any of the residences of Rawat without explicit invitation, i.e., anyone who ever was invited to "The Residence" was considered an extraordinarily fortunate devotee. Hope this helps to explain the issues surrounding the Malibu "Residence." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks Sylviecyn. So it appears Rawat himself called it a "large" house at the time. Jayen466 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) People who live in rented accommodation call it their home, so the point must be made that Rawat didn't own it which isn't clear at the moment.Momento (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC) We do say that the DLM bought it and that it served as their HQ. Apart from that, Dettmers, in the above-quoted non-RS, makes it clear that the DLM asked Rawat to move out of the Malibu house, since otherwise more DLM funds would be seen to be going to his personal upkeep than would be advisable for the audit. However, according to Dettmers, once gifts to GMJ personally were properly accounted for, it turned out that Rawat had enough money to pay for Malibu himself, and Rawat refused to leave the house when asked to by Mishler. I am not saying any of that should go in the article, but it seems to me Rawat kind of did own the house, more so than the DLM. Jayen466 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The chronology is wrong. Rawat can't move into the house until it is purchased. Therefore it should say - "In 1974 DLM purchased a 4 acre property in Malibu for $400,000 which served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters and as a residence for Rawat who relocated in November from Pacific Palisades citing security concerns". The description of the house comes from 1979 and belongs further down the article.Momento (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) It would be harder on the reader to move the description to another part of the article. There's no indication that the house changed. At most, we might say, "...later described as..." Since the subject himself calls it a "large, beautiful house" in 1974, and a 1975 source calls it a "mansion", I don't see any real need for a change. There's no indication that Rawat paid any rent, and we have a source that says the DLM paid the mortgage. Somehow, the DLM doesn't exist anymore but Rawat is still occupying the house. Overall, I think the current text in the draft is best. Sine we don't know the exact details it's better to leave it vague rather than try to create false precision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC) There's nothing false about the precision, you know what Francis thinks about vagueness. First DLM bought the property and then Rawat moved in, simple. It can't be any other way. And any description must appear chronologically.Momento (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think that using terms like "needs to be" and "must" are helpful. And there's absolutely no "need" for descriptions to appear chronologically by the publication date of the source. If there were we'd have to re-write the article from top to bottom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The whole article is based on chronology. His childhood in India, followed by coming to the west, followed by marriage and rift, followed by westernization etc. Getting the chronology right is fundamental to the accuracy and understanding of the subject. It's not optional for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) We're describing the house that was purchased in 1974, so that is where the description should go chronologically, not the date when the description was written, unless there's some evidence that the description isn't accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) So we can describe Rawat in the 70s section as a "messenger of peace"{ since that was how was described later? I don't think so.Momento (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I dunno, what's the source and context? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) According to DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY FOR PEACE, an article La Sicilia, July 2nd, 2008.Momento (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I think this is getting rather off topic. The existing text in the article is that it was called a "lavish walled estate". We discussed this on the article talk page months ago. No one is disputing that that term was used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) You asked a question and I replied. And it is important that logic and chronology are respected. Another example of incorrect chronology is this - "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother.[38][39] She publicly disowned him in 1975 and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM, while Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples. Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". It should be "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother.[38][39] While Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples most of the Indian mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed. Mata ji appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM and publicly disowned Rawat in 1975". Anyway the whole section is needs a rewrite but Francis seems reluctant to listen to my opinion.Momento (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, I agree on the chronology aspect. We should report in chronological sequence – not according to publication dates, but according to the time at which the described events took place – and should stick fairly strictly to the real-life timeline. That'll also save us from the temptation of grouping things into OR-based themes. Jayen466 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No one is disputing that material should be covered in chronological order. I've been a proponent of that all along. But that can be done too strictly. For example, elements of the Indian customs/finance issue were still coming out in the summer of 1973, after the pie incident. Even so, it's better to handle the customs/finance all at once, rather than jumping back and forth between that and the customs issue. The current paragraph in the draft is:"In November 1974 Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California.[42][43] Purchased by the DLM for $400,000, the property also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters.[42][43] It was described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press.[44]" Rather than moving the material it's makes more sense to simply insert "later described". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) "later described" Why? The logic seems to be off here, unless you would agree to Momento's argument above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Good Will, because chronological means that it must be "In 1974 DLM purchased a 4 acre property in Malibu for $400,000 which served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters and as a residence for Rawat who relocated in November from Pacific Palisades citing security concerns". Any comments from 1979 must go after the bush fire which occurred in 1978. Simple. And why just choose "lavish estate", the religious writer of the LATimes John Dart called it "Land and buildings".By the way People magazine has him living in Denver in June 1976. "Accompanied by his wife and several Mission officials, he left his plush $80,000 home in Denver, now headquarters of the movement in this country, to travel to India." Momento (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. But we can use the earlier descriptions - "large house" and "mansion", and then use the "lavish walled estate" part later. Note that we still haven't found a reliable source for the 1978 brush fire impacting the subject. We do have a source saying the subject moved to Miami to have better access to international flights. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Please do not characterize several editors good faith efforts to introduce chronology into the article as "making a mountain out of a molehill". PIP provides an eye witness description of the damage.Momento (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC) There's nothing uncivil about saying that the importance of this editing issue has been overblown, in my opinion. If you disagree please take it up with the mediator. PIP isn't a reliable source, see the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Momento is confusing, on the one hand logic and chronology, and list order on the other. When writing anything that has a chronological element, and which deals with more complexity than a mere list of events or characters, it will usually be necessary to have chronology subservient to the need for concurrency of related concepts. The issue is particularly pertinent where the concepts are concerned with overlapping events which have duration and which overlap without having contemporaneous start and/or end points. The English language is structured with a high degree of tolerance to allow this subservience of chronology, without consequent loss of meaning. I hope that Momento has simply misunderstood this issue because otherwise his points look like tendentious editing. The current version of 4 (v2.2) is perfectly adequate in terms of its relatedness of concepts having priority over chronology, not withstanding that there is a question over the adequacy of the ‘brush fire’ reference. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I will say that draft 4 does – as did some of our earlier drafts – tidy up some of the chronological jumps that we have in the present version of the article (notably around the house). Jayen466 01:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.3) Some minor changes resulted from the v2.2 discussions above ([71]), but it appears we finished the discussions, leading in some instances to "no change" (e.g. the vases/Rolling Stone issue was settled at WP:RSN#Rolling Stone. So proposing v2.3 for implementation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) My objection against the vase sentence stands unchanged; I don't agree with the editorial judgment. I had offered a re-write for the Rawat and premie quotes above, Momento concurred. I suggested moving Mataji's reference to Rawat's materialistic lifestyle to the earlier paragraph which reports her denouncing him, Will concurred. I pointed out today that neither Melton nor Time seem to refer to the vice president, and suggested placing refs 65 and 66 together at the end of the sentence, since it synthesises or summarises both sources. Jayen466 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Re: 1) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? Do ytou acknolwege that two noticeboards have reviewed the matter and found it accetable? 4) Are you saying we need a citation for Hand, or that reference to him should be removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC) As I have repeatedly said Draft 4 (v2.3) is hugely biased. We say he lives like "a millionaire" and then we provide a completely redundant example of what a "millionaire" lifestyle entails - "the Malibu estate, Rawat had homes in Denver, London, New York and India;[47][48][29] he had two planes (later a private jet),[47] sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver". Complete over kill, undue weight and chronologically distorted. Likewise we already say that the lifestyle was possible because of "contributions from his Western devotees" but a few sentences down we provide the redundant " all of them said to be gifts from disciples". And then we go on about Rolls Royces again. I have rewritten Draft 4 (v2.3) as Draft 14 without the undue weight, without the over kill, without the material that belongs to DLM and with a few bits of necessary context.Momento (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Re the vases, my suggestion is we drop that sentence and try to get the rest of the draft sorted. Re Hand: We could either delete the mention (in the sentence cited to Melton and Time) or add a reference if there is another suitable reference tying him to the cited statements (I don't know if there is and haven't researched it). What do you think of the rewrite for the Rawat/premie quotes; any good? Jayen466 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC) One thing that doesn't work well in draft 4 yet is that we introduce Mishler's criticism re diversion of funds, without mentioning him by name, and then introduce him by name in the following paragraph, making it appear as though the "founding president" and Mishler might be two different persons. Jayen466 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? I would argue that there is merit in the arguments presented. I am sure that there are ways to find common ground if effort is made in that direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC) There are also unresolved issues with several sentences, that for some unknown reason have been not been addressed fully. On the first sentence, for example, there is a counterpoint missing which was added on Proposal 13: Beginning a process of democratizing and secularizing the movement, he also began to asserted his independence from his mother, Mata Ji, who returned to India with his brother Satpal.[246][247][151] - Basically there is well sourced content on later proposals that ought to be considered. And that is just the first sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? Might I ask you and Francis to rethink your position on including this sentence? Because I doubt you would argue as forcefully for inclusion of this content if this were just any run-of-the-mill Wiki bio. However tempting, illustrative or fitting the mental image conjured up by the sentence may seem to be, taking a hard look at the statement, and scrutinising it for what proportion of it yields certain, incontrovertible facts, there is no encyclopedic value apparent. In addition, the allegation is to our knowledge only present in a single journalistic source that is 34 years old. Jayen466 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 I assume you'll flesh out the references in due course? Jayen466 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I still believe Draft 14 is viable. Adding the sources is quite straight-forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I'll start assembling the references immediately.Momento (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 appears to be a big step backwards in terms of reaching consensus. It quite simply doesn't discuss Rawat's 'opulent lifestyle', which is the purpose of this section. The key points that need to be brought back in include the Malibu house, the cars, the planes, etc. In addition, the points about his continuing wealthy lifestyle despite the financial problems from Millennium '73 need to be re-inserted as a starting point towards a balanced section. Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The sentence I have the most problem with is: ...contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire – running a household for his wife, his brother and sister-in-law, Raja Ji and Claudia, as well as financing travel for his entourage of close officials on his frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals."Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) This sentence describes a typical high net worth lifestyle, but not an 'opulent/luxurious' lifestyle, and thus appears to be quite misleading. Rawat wasn't biographically noteable for being able to run a household for his family and finance travel; he was noteable for a luxurious lifestyle as described in previous drafts. This doesn't come across at all with the above description. Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) That sentence is in most of the drafts we have been discussing recently, incl. Draft 4. Jayen466 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Yes it is, but my concern is all about context. In the other drafts, this sentence doesn't stand on its own, but is immediately followed by specific examples of his lifestyle, such as the Malibu house being described as av"lavish hilltop estate", etc. In draft 14, there is merely a justification for gifts of wealth in the following paragraph, without specific examples. Thus, in Draft 14 the sentence I quoted is left to stand on its own and is much more central to 'painting the picture' of Rawat's lifestyle than in other drafts. Savlonn (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The following paragraph does keep the reference to Rawat's teenage fascination with cars, airplanes, stereos and computer.However, with the omission of the key point that he actually had real collections of them available to him, this point could apply as much to me as to him!Savlonn (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, the draft loses a little too much of the materialistic issues we set out to address with this proposal, but we should look at including the information given on Rawat's activities in this time period that is missing in the other drafts. Jayen466 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 says he leads the "lifestyle of a millionaire" and then we mention "primarily interested in the accumulation of wealth, rather than changing the world" the we mention his followers we're "more than happy to supply him with luxuries” then we mention "a helipad on the Malibu estate". Four mentions! Surely any independent reader will get the impression that Rawat lived the life of a millionaire and was supplied with luxuries to the point that he was criticized for it and had use of a helicopter at his Malibu estate. Any more is overkill.Momento (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (outdented reply) Yes, an independent reader reader will get the impression that he was wealthy, and for most biographies of wealthy people, I would agree this is sufficient. However, not in this case, as much of Rawat's early notability was around his not just wealthy, but extraordinarily luxurious lifestyle, and this does not come across in your draft. The descriptions of his Rolls Royce fleet and aircraft were not placed in the previous drafts for 'titillation', but to describe the reality of his lifestyle, such as is biographically notable. Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) The balance is gained through additional context, which I am all for. If the biography also emphasizes points such as: his young age, born into luxury/high caste, tradition of gurus receiving luxurious gifts, and contemporary media bias, overkill and errors, then we will have a balanced, factual biography in which in the independent reader can come to their own conclusions/judgment of Rawat's character.Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding specific of draft 14: * Satpal is introduced as Mata Ji's eldest son in Para 2, but is mentioned without this context earlier in para 1. Can this context be moved to the first reference to Satpal Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Done.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Para 3 - reference to fascination with cars, airplanes, stereos and computers. As per my previous comment, this could apply to just about any teenage male without mentioning that his collection of cars and airplanes weren't models but the real thing! Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Removed.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Para 4 -defamation suit. This is written from the first person voice e.g. "Rawat stepped forward immediately" rather than as quotation from sources as in other paragraphs. This change of voice makes the first person sections appear objective and indisputable, whilst the sections quoting from 3rd parties appear more subjective. Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) All previous paras say the same "Rawat took administrative control", "he obtained a court order" etc, so not sure what you mean.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Last para. I have multiple problems with the reference to the Malibu estate. Firstly, the prior context has been removed, so the reader has no idea what the Malibu Estate you are referring to is. Secondly, the helicopter landing pad is only mentioned in reference to a local dispute. This context completely removes the helicopter pad from the perception of any relationship to Rawat's wealth or lifestyle. I know that this has been in several previous drafts, but at least in those drafts the background of the Malibu estate being provided as a luxurious home for Rawat's family has been given.Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Added Malibu estate to address this issue.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) It's not clear why Sat Pal (or Satpal, let's be watchful that we use consistent spelling throughout the article) would have launched a defamation suit against his younger brother. If memory serves, Satpal passed a picture of Rawat and his wife kissing to the press, and Rawat's side then did something similar in response. I don't necessarily want to get into all that detail, but as it is, the reader may ask themselves, What defamation? Perhaps we can agree to drop "defamation" and that just "lawsuits" will do for present purposes. Jayen466 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) All we have is "defamation". What is interesting is the number of scholars who claim the court case was a battle for DLM launched by Rawat.Momento (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC) How about we start the 80's with Rawat flying his own 707 around the world. One sentence conveys a lot about him as a teacher, pilot, millionaire?Momento (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Sure, why not. Jayen466 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately, we are back at a stalemate, as the references to Rawat's lifestyle have not been re-inserted. There's no details about the cars and planes, and when the reference to Malibu estate was put back in, the description of it as a 'lavish estate' (which is the central purpose of this section to describe Rawat's luxurious/opulent lifestyle) was omitted. This is unacceptable. Savlonn (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) In the Bill Gates article his $125 million house gets just "Bill Gates' house is a 21st century earth-sheltered home in the side of a hill overlooking Lake Washington in Medina, Washington. According to King County public records, as of 2006, the total assessed value of the property (land and house) is $125 million, and the annual property tax is $991,000". No tabloid adjectives like "lavish" though I'm sure hundreds of newspapers and magazines would have used every available superlative and not a word about his other properties. Even the Wiki article on the house itself boasts only one adjective for the 66,000 square feet (6,100 m²) house on a 5.15 acres (20,800 m²) lot and that is "large". And Gates' multibillionaire lifestyle is covered with "Gates is also known as an avid reader and the ceiling of his large, home library is engraved with a quotation from The Great Gatsby.[39] He also enjoys playing bridge, tennis, and golf". Nothing about his cars and planes although he has them [72]. In other words the Gates article follows BLP policy and has been written "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". This is the style we should be aiming for and which Draft 14 achieves. We should have an RFC for both drafts and ask independent editors to say which draft best follows BLP policy and is appropriate for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) That's not a good way of building consensus among involved editors. I note that we've made several requests for comments on noticebaords and some editors here have ignored the input we've received there. I think that we should see what the new mediation can bring to this dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Apples and oranges, Momento. One cannot compare the treatment of Bill Gates's wealth to the treatment Prem Rawat's wealth in their BLPs. Bill Gates has worldwide household name recognition as the self-made billionaire who founded Microsoft. His wealth isn't a contentious issue, nor is the cost of his house, his lifestyle, nor is it a contentious issue concerning how his house was paid for. Bill Gates didn't solicit donations from Microsoft employees in order to purchase his home, nor did Microsoft ever hold the deed to Gates's home. On the other hand, Prem Rawat doesn't have any name recognition in the U.S. or worldwide, he didn't obtain wealth conventionally as Bill Gates did (self-made man), and so much more needs to be explained about Rawat's wealth as a leader of an NRM. Hope this clarifies. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Your assertion that Gates' wealth is less contentious than Rawat's is incorrect. Gates' article says "Many decisions that led to antitrust litigation over Microsoft's business practices have had Gates's approval. In the 1998 United States v. Microsoft case, Gates gave deposition testimony that several journalists characterized as evasive". "Despite Gates's denials, the judge ruled that Microsoft had committed monopolization and tying, blocking competition, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act". Imagine if Gates has given away his OS for free.Momento (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Momento, if you want to write up an entire page describing PR's house and linking it to our article here, including all the details about the house, grounds, and interiors, then yes, we can leave out much of the detail about it in this article. Otherwise, as said by Sylviecyn, you're comparing apples to oranges (additionally, to all the ways she lists above). The article on the house even includes the exact address, a much further invasion of privacy than the one you claimed when there was a picure of PR's house in an article, and yet you claim that the Gates' article follows BLP policy, and is conservative in its approach to Gates' privacy. I'm not sure how that can be. -- Maelefique (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Google "Bill Gates house" and you get 43,000 mentions. Google "Prem Rawat's house" and you get 11, and only two relate to his house. So Gates house is more notable by a factor 4,000 to one and deserves an article. And it is Gates' article that follows BLP policy, not the article on his house.Momento (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) On an unrelated note, I'm not sure what the status of these pages are anymore. The fact that the MedCab is closed and the formal mediation case is now open may render this page moot. I think AGK will need to be asked, but for now, the status of these pages remain unclear. Steve Crossin Contact/24 09:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC) References (please start new sections above this section)

Proposal 8

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Draft 1 The only change is that The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion. becomes The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, considered a new religious movement, and often labeled a sect or cult. DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion. I don't see any problem with the "church" part since it's in the text (though I'm not sure it's necessary in the intro). But what's our basis for saying that the DLM was considered an NRM but labeled a cult or sect? Why not use the same term for all three? Do we have a source that makes this distinciton or is it OR? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The phrase "label(l)ed a new religious movement" is not idiomatic. [73][74]. "Labelled a cult", however, is: [75][76]. "Considered an NRM" reflects the scholarly categorisation. --Jayen466 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "DLM said it was not a religion" is not an adequate summary of "DLM said the movement represented a church rather than a religion", which implies some sort of religious character inherent in the meaning of the word "church". --Jayen466 12:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The IRS has never specifically defined what it means by the church designation, however, it has set some parameters and characteristics a group/org must have in order for it to get the designation from that agency. All 501(c)3 orgs. are not designated as churches in the U.S. Elan Vital is. See IRS church defined. Also see Wiktionary definition of church. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ, I have seen the definition, though might have trouble finding it again now. It reads something like, "Church: An organisation that facilitates the gathering of people to worship a higher power." Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "Labelled"/"Considered" : Why don't we use "considered" for all three terms. It is clear that the DLM was considered a sect and a cult by some. I don't understnad what basis there is for using different verbs for the different nouns. That is obvious, is it not? "Sect" and "cult" are popular pejoratives, and their use is eschewed by the most reliable and up-to-date sources, i.e. present-day scholarship. [77] --Jayen466 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What's our source for using "labelled" for one term and "considered" for the other? The distinction you're making appears to the WP:SYNTH. Simply using the same verb, whichever it is, is neutral. Using different verbs is POV and must be sourced if not attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Using the same verb would imply that all three descriptors represent the same level of neutrality and scientific exactitude, which is not the case. The term 'NRMs' is the preferred and generally accepted term for academics, because, first, it is considered neutral and value-free – unlike 'cult' or 'sect', which have negative connotations ... Second, 'cult' and 'sect' are technical terms in the sociology of religion to describe types of groups distinctly different from NRMs so 'NRM' serves to maintain precision and avoid confusion. — Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions By Elisabeth Arweck] As the above quote makes clear, NRM is the NPOV term. If you want to say "was considered a sect or cult", then you have to say who considered it a sect or cult and attribute the POV. In the 1970s and 1980s we saw an explosion of new religious groups in America, many of which came to be labeled by their detractors as "cults." ... Groups that have commonly been identified as cults include those with non-Western flavors such as the ISKCON, the Divine Light Movement (DLM) — Joining a 'Cult': Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration? Journal article by Dena S. Davis; Journal of Law and Health, Vol. 11, 1996 Where the media and scholarship are in conflict, we should follow the scholarly view. --Jayen466 11:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Find a source that uses the different verbs. Otherwise it's POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I thought I did. The above Davis paper describes DLM (and others) as new religious movements ("these are truly new religious movements ...") and adds that their detractors "labeled" them cults. Perhaps we should let this discussion rest for a few days, then we can all mull over it. Jayen466 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'll keep mullng it over, but it appears to me that the last source there, Davis, uses the verb "identified". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Indeed it does, but not without first stating in the introduction that this was a label applied by detractors. They are the ones doing the "identifying". If you'd like to read it in context, the paper is online in questia, as well as here. The sentence using the word "identified" is in section II; the very next sentence uses "labeled as cults" again. Cheers, --Jayen466 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Btw, the paper also mentions a DLM-related kidnapping/deprogramming case (the Dietz case). --Jayen466 23:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) "Religion"/"Church" : We also have quotes from spokemen saying the DLM is only registered as a religion for financial purposes. I'm not sure how much detail we need for the intro. As I mentioned elsewhere, NRMs often try to avoid association with the term "religion", since they feel the word has acquired a stuffy flavour that does not reflect what they aspire to be about. But given that the focus of DLM was self-knowledge and meditation, its religious nature is evident. Meditation is a religious technique. --Jayen466 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I understand that and it's why the current text says they deny being a religion. Why add the part about being a church? What does it add to the intro? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What does it add to the intro?: Precision. --Jayen466 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC) It would also add precision to report that they say they are only registered as a religion for financial purposes. However precision takes space. The point of an intro isn't to be precise -just the opposite- its point is to summarize. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I think increasing the number of words in that sentence by 2 would not inflate the lede unduly. But as above, let's give it a rest for the mo. (As for the tax thing -- one thing to consider is that in many countries, a spiritual movement that wants to avoid using the label "religion" for itself, for whatever reason, is forced to use it in tax and legal contexts (or forego the privileges that other communities enjoy), simply because the letter of the law does not provide any other categories. That's different from country to country. In Germany, for example, "religious" and "ideological" communities are treated equally by the Constitution. So atheist groups for example qualify for the same tax breaks as Christian denominations, and enjoy the same freedom guarantees.) Cheers, --Jayen466 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Other versions: Would the authors of other versions please start threads to explain their edits? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 More accurate presentation/ summary of the material article, in particular to the fact that there have been conflicting reports on the "labeling" of the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That version appears to give undue weight to terms that were rarely used. How many sources call it "an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions"? Also, what basis is there for using different verbs, as in "was considered a new religious movement and categorized in numerous and sometimes conflicting terms including cult, a charismatic religious sect..." Why not say that it was "considered" or "categorized" for all the terms? What source do we have for making that distinction? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That version stays true to what the article says. A lead needs to summarize the article and not give special treatment to some material at the expense of other materials. The fact is that there are competing and contradictory terms as it relates to the description of this movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What is the source for using "considered" versus "categorized"? As for the minor items, the article says many things that we don't include in the intro, where we only have room for the main themes. How many sources call the DLM a "spin-off from other traditional religions"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My argument is that there have been competing and contradictory terms used. And that is a fact that needs to be stated in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) That can be stated without bringing in terms that have only been used very rarely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I have reservations about "...spin-off from other traditional religions", not having heard of this before, but the rest of this proposal looks fine to me. I think the summary of descriptions seems about right. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Actually now I look at it, "...categorized in numerous and sometimes conflicting terms" does not work either. One does not really "categorise in terms." I will try to do better. Rumiton (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 Linguistically and stylistically it works, but I would like to retain the distinction between scholarly terminology and careless popular use. --Jayen466 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I think this version is good. I disagree with Jayen about the need to make a distinction in the intro - all the terms were used by scholars and popular sources alike. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I think the phrase "The western movement" is misplaced. "The western movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, ..." implies that the eastern movement had different influences. I expect the intent was to place it so that the other descriptions apply to it and not the eastern movement. Can we really make that distinction? Most sources I've read treat the DLM as one movement until the rift. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Scholarly use has changed somewhat since the 1970s, where there was some confusion in scholarly materials as well. I believe we should generally use current, rather than outdated scholarly terms. --Jayen466 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That was not the intent at all, Will, of course the influences on both organisations were exactly the same. Indeed they started as the same movement. I just tried to make it read better, but I see the problem you raise. I will try to make it clearer, and try to accommodate Jayen's point also. Clearly the DLM's idealogical relationship with Sant Mat and the Bhagavad Gita was not particularly clear to the afternoon dailies, but was discerned by the more scholarly sources. This is an important point. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The changes you made take care of that problem but raise another. "... the western movement was popularly seen as...X,Y,Z" implies that scholars did not also see it as X,Y,Z, while in fact they did. I think the "widely" that was there before is better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) All right, I can see that, too. Changed. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC) It looks good to me. I have no objections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I can live with it. --Jayen466 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Are we all agreed to drop Draft 4 in then? Jayen466 12:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I can live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Quick note Just a note, in future, please add links to new proposals onto that page. It's the only way I know there are new proposals :). Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Sure, will do. --Jayen466 12:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 9

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Draft 1 Started, per User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6#Draft 3 - Media perceptions --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I suggest you seek consensus before proceeding with this proposal. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The whole aim is to get a consensus. Do you have any objections to this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I think that The Register is not a very good source for anything, and particularly not for any controversial claims. I encourage all editors to review all the related articles to ensure that there is no "double standard" in play regarding sourcing, particularly for negative claims about living people. — Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Jayen466 11:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jimbo Wales' comment. Alas, but there's Jimbo's double standard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah yeah, I knew you'd say that. :-) However, I also think that the Register is not a very good source to use here. ;-) Jayen466 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) FYI: there has been a WP:RSN discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#The_Register --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Which makes it clear what are the problems with that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) This draft contains material already present in the article. I will make my arguments about other aspects if this draft, once the duplicated material is removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Perhaps the intent of the draft is to move that material to this section. If so, could Francis please say so? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Well, I think we'll need to discuss this in a central place: Discussion topic E at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat? Anyway, Jossi should better list what he perceives as double content. "contains material already present in the article" is too vague, I don't know what he's talking about. Not the Pilarzyk para about media: it is currently not in the article, but I'd discuss that at topic E nonetheless, as it is an issue accross several proposals. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) If there are no specific objections to the material it should be posted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Going twice.... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's ready yet; editors have been preoccupied elsewhere, so give it a few more days for discussion to take place. I'll place a note on Talk:Prem_Rawat. Jayen466 12:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC) This is badly written and long-winded, and repeats material under consideration on other pages. That stuff needs to be sorted out first. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I believe this is proposal is based on the fact that Proposal6 is stalled due to its size. This is a piece of that proposal. Do you have any specific objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I trust I don't really have to spell out to the experienced editors assembled here why The Register is not an appropriate WP:RS for the statements sourced to it here. Jayen466 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) OK, so if we write draft that omits the Register as a source that'd be acceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The first two sentences are not reader-friendly. We tell the reader there were articles in Newsweek and Time and move swiftly on to Pilarzyk. The reader has not learnt anything useful. We could either drop, or at the very least contract them: "From the early 1970s Rawat's movement received press coverage both from establishment mass media such as Newsweek and Time, and from youth movement sources." But actually, press coverage seems to haven been ubiquitous, with all major papers reporting, so I don't see a rationale for singling out Newsweek and Time (OR). --Jayen466 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC) How about: "From the early 1970s Rawat's movement received substantial press coverage both from establishment mass media and from youth movement sources." Jayen466 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I presume that "youth movement sources" refres to periodicals like the Rolling Stone or Fifth Estate. Those are more frequently described as "counterculture". Perhaps that or a similar term would be a better descriptor of the non-establishment sources. Otherwise I think Jayen's suggestion is good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Fifth Estate would be described as anarchist, and thus in a very different category to Rolling Stone, which could be seen as positively commercial. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Fifth Estate later became an anarchist publication, but it wasn't at the time the articles in question were written. Read the WP article for an explanation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Maybe have a look at Pilarzyk: The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past political activists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973). Premie and former political leftist Rene Davis became a popular target of such publications (see Davis, 1974). In general, most accounts have been quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's point of view. However, it should be noted that the movement has received positive comments from such youth culture "folk heroes" as anti-war activist Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. Typical reactions by DLM converts to the negative reports varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. ... 2. For example, one can compare reports by establishment mass media with youth movement sources. For the former, see Newsweek (August 2, 1971), Pfarrer (1973), Morgan (1973), du Plessix Gray (1973) and Baxter (1974). For the latter, see Jacobi' (1972), Reed (1973), Kelley (1974), Davis (1974) and Levine (1974). Or, "Establishment mass media": Newsweek (August 2, 1971) Pfarrer (1973) → Pfarrer, Donald. "The Guru" in The Milwaukee Journal. October 1973 Morgan (1973) → Morgan, Ted. "Oz in the Astrodome" in New York Times. December 9, 1973 du Plessix Gray (1973) → du Plessix Gray, Francine. "Blissing out in Houston" in The New York Review of Books Vol. 20 No. 20 (December 13, 1973) Baxter (1974) → Baxter, Ernie. "The multi-million dollar religion ripoff: The Perfect Master may lift your spirit – He'll certainly lift your purse" in Argosy 380. August 1974, 72; 77-81. "Youth culture publications"/"Youth movement sources" ("most of these ... leftist") Jacobi (1972) → Jacobi, Judy. "Will the world see the light?" in Bugle-American. December 1972. Reed (1973) → Reed, Pat. "A million dollar cosmic flop" in Bugle-American. November - December 1973, pp. 8-12. Kelley (1974) → Kelley, Ken "Guru Maharaj Ji: Over the Hill at 16?" in Ramparts. February 1974 Note however that Kelley was not limited to leftist ... youth culture, not even in 1974: Kelley, Ken "Get Your Red-Hot Panaceas!" in New York Times. January 19, 1974 Kelley, Ken "An East Indian Teen-Ager Says He Is God" in Vogue. March 1974 Kelley, Ken "I See The Light" in Penthouse. July 1974, pp. 98-100, 137-138, 146, 148, & 150-151. Davis (1974) → Davis, Tom. "Primo premie and the Divine Light 'Kid'" in Bugle-American. April 1974, pp. 36-43 Levine (1974) → Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC) OK, you've convinced me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Of what? I didn't try to convince anybody of anything, nor was I convinced of pretty much after combing through the list: Pilarzyk did not attempt to give a comprehensive list of types of publications on Rawat (Oui, Penthouse, Playboy are in a different league from the two categories he mentions), nor was that needed for his analysis: he was trying to get at the youth culture's perspective on the issue. Seems like Pilarzyk is a bit extrapolating on the Milwaukee situation (The Milwaukee Journal vs. Bugle-American), and trying to range his other sources along these two, but imho hardly successful: see e.g. Ken Kelley's palmares (not even mentioned: Kelley also published in The New York Review of Books, cooperating with du Plessix Gray [78] [79]). Press typology surely was not as simple as it might have seemed like from a Milwaukee perspective (imho!). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I am working on Draft 2 for comment. Stand by. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC) How much longer? Do you have any specific complaints about Draft 1? This practice of creating competing drafts without discussing the pros and cons of each one has the effect of parties talking past each other. We want to create one draft we all agree on, not sets of drafts to fight over. It'd be more helpful to fix Draft 1 than to create another flawed draft. This draft has been here for a week with no almost specific complaints. If editors care so little let's just address the complaints that have been made and post it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I have been up in the mountains on a missing person search, just catching up now. Editors care, oh yes, we do. I think you are a little off track here, we well as unnecessarily hurried. The preamble to this page says to "Add their proposed wording to a new section" rather than amend the previous. My new section draft is my proposed wording, attempting to take editors' remarks into consideration. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC) The only specific remarks here are about the use of the Register as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 1 (v. 2) Tweaks, mainly involving chronology and refs: e.g. moved the August 1973 pieing incident to the start of the 2nd paragraph (the declaration by the PR staff is otherwise difficult to understand on first reading). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I don't see a great improvement, Francis, especially regarding NPOV. The cameraman talking to his camera particularly went right over my head. Here is my Draft 2. Draft 1 (v. 3) Simplified pieing incident, per Talk:Prem Rawat#Gavin Newsom --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Issue/Discussion topic E Please see User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic E: history negligence --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 2 Condensed, but perhaps still a bit verbose. The section listing the names of reporters who attended Millenium seemed irrelevant, but for the time being I have left it in. Omissions are largely for neutrality of tone or eliminating redundancy. Discussions welcome. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure of the need to include the list of reporters. We cover the Millennium festival in the article once already, and it'd be better to keep it together. The main treatment of the festival is on the DLM page, and that's where the list would be best placed. I see you deleted the pie incident. That should be covered chronologically, and I intend to propose an addition once we finish some of the other outstanding proposals. What's the source for the number of YouTube hits? That might run afould of WP:NOR. We already mention Words of Peace in the "2000s" section, so it's redundant here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also DMOZ is not a usable source. ("Prem Rawat links at Open directory project (DMOZ)"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 The pie is still there if you look, I just modified the language. If it has not previously been mentioned, it should be. I don't think WP:NOR is violated, as the YouTube info is verifiable by anyone. I think once we get all of this together we will still need to go though and fine tune. Only then will it become clear what belongs in which section. You are probably right about WoP ending up in the 2000s section only. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, the Brazilian award was a media prize, so including it in the Media Response section seems apposite. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC) The WoP should only be in one place. I think as much as possible we should cover things chronologically, such as the pie and the WoP. The pie incident is mentioned with no context whatsoever, so readers are left not knowing what was being reported on. As for thi draft in general, I sugges that in the future if there are only small changes it'd be better to make a version 2, as Francis did, rather than posting a whole separate draft. The only significnat change I see is the deletion of the list of reporters at Millennium. Did I miss anything? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC) You have made that suggestion before, and I have pointed out before that the preamble specifically advises against it. Not change the wording of proposals, they should add a new proposal with the changed wording. Yes, deleting the list of reporters was the main change. I agree that the Halley incident deserves fuller coverage, but Media Response is not the place for it, chron or no chron. Rumiton (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Let;s ask Steve. I think he meant that users shouldn't change each other's drafts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, that's correct. I'll just clarify what that means, as it is somewhat vague. It means that you shouldn't change or alter the wording of another user's proposal. In other words, don't edit other user's proposals, unless correcting a clear error with a reference, as in, something that is causing an error at the {{reflist}} at the bottom, or for obvious typo errors. I'd generally adivse against editing other proposals altogether, but I'm leaving some room for leeway. Though I think posting a 2nd version is a more viable alternative than writing a whole new proposal. Best, Steve Crossin (contact) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for that clarification, Steve. But, could this be a good reason to have editors start signing their drafts? It's not like we don't know who's writing what, and it would simplify the process to have signatures on the drafts. Thanks for your (oft-undeserved patience. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I'm fine to waive that original idea. Feel free to sign away. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC) "The summer 1976 issue of And It Is Divine announced it needed a "very conscious focus on Guru Maharaj Ji", and would stop experiments of providing "non-Knowledge oriented material".[49] By the end of the decade the movement had almost disappeared from public view in the United States, apart from some reports about the defection of significant former adherents.[8][30] By then there was some presence in the new media: some ex-followers had started websites devoted to their former guru," There was no Internet at the end of the seventies. --Jayen466 11:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Yep, that needs looking at. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) The WoP should only be in one place. I think as much as possible we should cover things chronologically, such as the pie and the WoP. The pie incident is mentioned with no context whatsoever, so readers are left not knowing what was being reported on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)