Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 4 October 2012

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cade Metz (2008-02-06). "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?". The Register.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Prem Rawat (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat

	Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Subpages

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February – March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 March – April 2008 March – May 2008 May – June 2008 May – August 2008 August – November 2008 November 2008 – January 2009 April 2009 April – July 2009 June 2009 – May 2010 May – June 2010 June – August 2010 August – September 2010 October 2010 – January 2012 January – February 2012 February –

Media section

This section is redundant. The only thing of value is - "In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them and the next day something completely different is printed." which could go in the 1966 to 1973 section. The sentence about "the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" refers to a meeting at Millenium and is included to make it look as if Rawat had a "50-member public relations team"! DLM was active in 55 countries so that represents one representative from each country at a meeting at an international event of 20,000 people. The "often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports," is not supported by the sources cited and "anti-cult writings" are by an exorcist and a fundamental Christian, hardly a neutral source. I think it should be removed.Momento (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Geaves is a neutral source either. As a compromise we can delete all references of both of them. What do you think? Surdas (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, A source needs not necessarily be neutral, but reliable and competent. An encyclopedia must be neutral.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob Larson exorcises evil spirits over the radio and write books about rock music and Satanism, written from a Christian perspective. Ron Rhodes is a Christian fundamentalist who believes Catholicism is a cult. Therefore every non Christian religious organisation is a cult or worse to these authors. They are not suitable sources for this article.Momento (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before a long time ago. What you are doing right now is following jossi's line. I don't think this should be a further issue. Read the archives. Surdas (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If the article has evolved since then, which it obviously has, this must also legitimately reflect in the lead section.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has some obvious errors that should be fixed. You can't use Larson and Rhodes as authorities on cults. Just like you can't use people like Larson as an authority on the Rolling Stones (you're bound to be able to find someone that says RS music is an evil vomit that has caused many innocent children to commit suicide) or Rhodes on the Pope. Their extreme views on others are irrelevant to a credible encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So you deleted the cult sentence out of the lede already? I think what you are pursuing is indeed a white wash. I strictly oppose the way that you are proceeding in the article.Surdas (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to have "Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that "the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" didn't exist in the article. So then I went with "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active in 55 countries by the end of 1973 although it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that the source for "cult" was Larson and Rhodes, two Christian extremist and two newspaper articles over 40 years. And then I found that there wasn't a source for "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active etc". So I had no choice but to toss that out as well. Now we are left with properly sourced facts that are in the article. It isn't my decision to remove those elements from the Lead it is Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

again you have deleted material without concensus only based on your opinion, this seems to me your current pattern and should be reported.Surdas (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Surdas. It's extremely concerning that Momento is removing a lot of material that took years (since 2004!) to establish and become stable. Momento is undoing that work without adequate discussion and without any concensus. Btw, I've read WP:Lead and there's nothing there that excuses this style of editing. I suggest Momento read WP:Ownership. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the difference in the Lead between March and today is that it is precisely one word longer. So a lot of material has not been removed. What has happened is more sourced material has been added and unsourced and repeated material removed.Momento (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i find it almost unbearable that a current follower is deciding what is a reliable source and what not.Surdas (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deciding what is reliable or not. What I have done is notice that the source says "religious" not "Indian"; that there is no source for "DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West", nor "Under his charismatic leadership", nor "though it was sometimes described as a cult". And added two sentences to cover the 30 years from 1982. And I would remind you and others that your comment "unbearable that a current follower is deciding etc" is a personal attack and "Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks".Momento (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, i apologise for the follower , but it is a fact that you scratched the cult sentence in the article only based on your opinion and then amending the lead to it, saying you just followed the guidelines. Reminds me of Jossi who changed the policy rules for his conveniance and later relating to it.Surdas (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:LEAD.Momento (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a compromise following an idea from user John Carter, who had some suggestions a little while ago concerning a to-be-created-manual-of-style for religious subjects. He suggested, if I remember correctly, to give information on their historic provenience along with disputed sources, to allow a clearer picture. I think, the "cult"-issue is historically relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, reasonably embedded, perhaps not necessarily in the lead. The article covers a lot of less notable issues, and if this one is left out, would continually be susceptble to reproach of POV. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i think we can all remember that mentioning the cult leader in the lead was inserted by Jimbo Wales personally to make an important point, concerning Prem Rawat. It was relativated then further on, by concensus with the help from Will Beback and now it shall disappear into nothing. I suggest, we inform Jimbo about what happened to his entry and what kind of course the article has now taken. Surdas (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but remember: In science, to switch from evidence-based proceedings to eminence-based is usually considered a setback in quality. BTW, what happened to Maelefique?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

if you followed the ARB:com on WillBeback Jimbo was criticized for interfering and using his position.Momento (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The main reason "cult" was allowed in the lead was because DLM was correctly identified - "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult". Once 'new religious movement' was removed because "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" had no source, then "cult" had to go because it couldn't remain as the main description. The DLM article describes "the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion" and Geaves was the source of "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". If editors are happy to have a full description of DLM in this article and Geaves comment then we could reinstate something like "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult".Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How is: ... and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated. It became the fastest growing NRM in the West and was widely seen as a charismatic cult at the time. for the lead, and put the full account into the 70-73 section?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

you need sources and you won't find a source saying "widely seen as a charismatic cult".Momento (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Then it is not sourced properly in the DLM article as well. I meant it as a sort of roundup of Geaves's, Kent's, and Larson's statements, which are later sourced in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe I'm too tired to find the right balance between abstraction and precision - it's past 1 p.m. here. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason why I have confined myself to editing the lead is to avoid the issues of adding or subtracting from the article (apart from the out of date "Interview" sentence). With the lead, the sources are either in the article or they're not. And the process of summarising the article for the lead reduces a large body of material to bare bones. I would be happy to edit the article with the co-operation of other editors to ensure major issues are covered and therefore eligible for the lead but I am not interested in a POV battle.Momento (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement there. When opposing parties realize they can be of use for each other, there is a chance for real advancement (Chinese wisdom).--Rainer P. (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead para four

I propose removing "Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" because it is undue weight. Two sources are provided in the article. One says ", "The purest forms of charismatic leaders are currently Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji. This shows that personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of charismatic leadership. The intelligent, ever-changing, and daily appearing Bhagwan is no less a charismatic leader than the materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable Guru Maharaj Ji". Being intellectually "unremarkable" does not mean having "a lack of intellect" and does not refer to his "public discourses". The second source is Stephen Kent who wrote about his experience as a 22 year old, "I found his poorly delivered message to be banal...Riding home with a friend that evening in the back seat of a car, I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day to pay homage to him by kissing his feet". It is clearly inappropriate because a) "banal" doesn't meaning "lacking in intellect", b) omitting his description of the others in his quote changes his meaning, and c) more importantly it is completely unacceptable to put to opinion of one single 22 year old in the lead as if it has any importance what so ever.Momento (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

you can continue the whitewash as you please it seems. No neutral editor is interested to get engaged in this article. Happy POV pushingSurdas (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest reasoned discourse rather than attacking an editor. If you don't like something be specific and deal with that edit. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

There are numerous neutral editors watching this article (two who have commented recently) and it seems they agree that putting the distorted summary of the opinion that a 22 year old held forty years ago into the Lead as the single description of Rawat's "public discourses" is giving it undue weight.Momento (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

numerous neutral editors? i have seen one who critised your POV pushing, but you don't care. I oppose to your edits, but you are just ignoring it, keeping on deleting and whitewashing the article, with your pseudo arguments. A 22 year old for example, wasn't this a youth religion/cult, who do you think fell for the con at that time, doctors, professors? Misplaced Pages is loosing if you are allowed to continue the way you are breaking the balance that existed in the article. Surdas (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There are 431 people watching this page. Since you value professors, I imagine you'd be happy if I inserted this material from the article in the lead. "According to Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton Rawat's students changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".. Momento (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know there are 431 people watching this page? I don't know how this edit ended up without my signature, but I still want to know how Momento knows how many people are watching this page, given that WP:Watch "Privacy" section states that even administrators know who's watching pages. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you stop wasting your time Momento. When the community eventually wakes up to your heavily biased single-purpose editing this article will be most likely be reverted to it's former state (which a number of people agreed was quite stable). Quite rightly nobody seems to have the stomach to engage your taunts, endless straw-man arguments and thinly-guised revisionism any longer. Having myself wasted hours trying to make you see sense over the years (to absolutely no avail) I can see why. I guess your making up for lost time after your years ban. How pathetic.PatW (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)!

thanks for finding the right words. Momento is completely team work resistant Surdas (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from all those personal attacks. Good editors have been banned for less. We should try and remain on (or reach, to begin with) a strictly argumentative level. "Stability" is not really an argument, and it is instructive to read WP:Consensus.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake we've been reading all those WP guidelines for YEARS! We all well versed in that! Does it do the slightest good? No! Stuff all this preaching about "personal attacks". It just sounds like Jossi again - totally 'passive' aggressive and threatening but couched as carefully as possible in calculatedly correct but twisted Wikispeak. As if Momento is interested in any 'Consensus' whatsoever with anyone other than you!! Do you think his last rash of Prem Rawat revisionism was done with 'consensus'?? NO WAY! Also if you call Momento's endless blustering and POV pushing anything approaching 'argumentative' then you're wrong. He NEVER sensibly engages argument, he just sets up straw men and goes ahead and just does what the **** he pleases. PatW (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear your argument why the opinion of a 22 year old who saw Rawat once should by the sole opinion presented on Rawat's teaching in the lead rather than the opinion of Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton who studied a dozen of Rawat's students for six years.Momento (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if, when making arguments, that, instead of referring to a source as "...opinion of a 22 year old..." (or, as in the instance above you described a source "an exorcist") that you state the name of the source. Stephen A. Kent wrote a book that was published in 2001, not when Kent was 22 years old. Here's the lead paragraph from the[REDACTED] article on Kent's book, From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. From Slogans to Mantras

"From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era is a non-fiction book by sociologist Stephen A. Kent. The book was published in both hardcover and paperback editions, in 2001. Benjamin Zablocki provided the foreword to the work. From Slogans to Mantras was cited by Choice as an Outstanding Academic Title that should be owned by every library."

The book is clearly a reliable source, is critically acclaimed, and the sentence stays. Personally attacking sources doesn't make them any less reliable only because one doesn't like what they have to say about a subject. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So the way momento presents his arguments is based on deception? Surdas (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely the only way forward is for non-neutral editors to limit their activities here to the talk page. The idea of consensus was that, since this article's history has been one of followers being extremely dominant and pushy with THEIR agenda, things were supposed to be discussed here thoroughly first...and not just amongst followers. That hasn't worked since Momento has returned, pushing for, and making contentious, biased edits without proper agreement. I wholly concur with the person who has commented that aggressive single purpose editors like Momento should be stopped. He's already ruined any goodwill we all had. PatW (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kent's book may of course be a reliable source for the things that he has actually dealt with in a scientific manner. Not everything from cover to cover in that book is to be used with equal dignity. This goes for all sources. If there is information available with more scientific weight, it should be considered accordingly. So please cool all that righteous indignation (in Germany there is a saying: Gerechte Empörung ist der Heiligenschein der Scheinheiligen. The pun gets lost in translation, but it means: Righteous indignation is the gloriole of the sanctimonious).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point, I'm not suggesting Kent isn't a reliable source, I'm saying that there are many reliable sources who discuss Rawat's teachings and it is therefore undue weight to only have Kent's opinion in the Lead. But rather than add the opinions of Downton, Melton, Geaves, Galanter etc it is easier to have none.Momento (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an agreeable solution for the lead could be something to the effect of: There have been divergent reactions from scientific authors?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't say anything. Clearly we can't allow Kent to be the only one to comment on Rawat's teachings and it would take a long time to get a satisfactory consensus. Let's leave all opinions in the article where they can be expanded on and various views expressed rather than just one view highlighted in the Lead.Momento (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would serve to announce that divergent scientific views, which cannot be summarized shortly, are going to be mentioned in the article body. And it's a compromise. Besides, a tendency for polarised and strongly divergent reactions have been in a way characteristical for Rawat's public reception. That is why we have this consensus problem here.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? Momento made the edit to the lead a couple of hours after he posted his proposal above. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish we were discussing this instead of all the bickering and sabre rattling that is being staged here. I believe we can find an agreeable compromise, and Momento's edit is, as anything, subject to change in the course of developement on a rational basis.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me I'm being irrational. I'm not bickering or sabre rattling either. My posts in this thread are quite reasoned and researched. And now this! The header for this section starts with Momento proposing removal of the one sentence. Three or 4 hours after his "proposal" he made the edit without discussion. I was assuming good faith and didn't bother to check the actual article until yesterday, when to my great chagrine and surprise, I found he had already made the edit. Stephen A. Kent's book is highly critically acclaimed by the ALA's (American Library Association) magazine Choice Choice, Current Views for Academic Libraries It's a division of the American Library Association (ALA) that reviews academic books for academic libraries. One cannot get a better endorsement for a reliable source. Here is the University of Alberta (Canada) academic page featuring prominent reviews of Kent's book From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

in fact rainer is supporting the behaviour of momento, being a follower himself he never reverted any deletion or change made by momento. Our protest against it remains with no impact whatsoever. It is almost like the good and bad cop tactic, as it has been practiced by Jossi, when using two or more accounts some time ago. The decision not to make edits without concensus is held up by former followers only.Surdas (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not think of you, Sylviecyn, when I made that remark, sorry. To me it appeared like some editors are hoping for a gullible Clint Eastwood to make their day. Still Momento's critique of solely featuring Kent's assessment in the lead section is worth being addressed, don't you agree? And surely we can find an agreeable wording for the lead, that covers what is said in the article. I made a proposal above, for starters. What do you think? And I am nobody's good cop or sock-puppet. Anybody can insert text, when it is an improvement. I usually hesitate to do so, because I am not as competent in your language as I wish I were. That's why I neither revert Momento's edits nor opponents'. And I am sure there is a better strategy for consensus than just stonewalling, when there is justifiable critique. In the end, as I understand from WP:Consensus, the better argument tops the desire for consensus. --Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't want to get involved on this page, I do hope to see it move in the direction of concrete attempts to deal with everyone's issues about the article, so Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction. (olive (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

I agree. I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

i haven't given any unworthy comments as long as there were neutral editors watching,commenting and working on this article.I have to admit that momento is right when he says that numerous editors are watching this article and they would interfere if they'd found something wrong in his actions. This didn't happen. That can only mean that you are going conform with his actions and the only problem is my and Pat's behaviour on the talk page. Sorry for that. I personally can only hope for another article in the register. Surdas (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How about adding: "Especially in the early years after his appearance in the West, Rawat was predominantly ridiculed or criticised by popular press. There have been highly divergent reactions from scientific authors." That sounds coherent and neutral to me and covers a lot of article content.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses." That's the sentence Momento removed. Yet, it's Paul Schnabel who "...characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic." Of Kent: "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly." Therefore, it's not only media that covered Guru Maharaj ji, academic scholars of NRMs, who are primarily sociologists, also covered him. So, not only do I think the sentence should be reverted, I think it should be expanded as follows: "Prem Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content and banality in his message." Additionally, I don't want to see anyone cutting the article proper with a justification based upon recent removal of key parts of the lead (which I think ought to be revisited). Since 2004 this article has been argued over, mediated (to no success), and gone through two arbitrations. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are again ignoring Momento's critique of this sentence being in the lead section, instead you add insult to injury, so to speak. It still does not cover the highly divergent statements of other sociologists, as Downton, Geaves, Hunt and some more, but makes a rather exeptional statement, which should not be picked for the lead for its one-sidedness. But I feel a little foolish repeating this over and over again. I think, my proposal covers more ground and is a lot more NPOV. What's your problem with it? If you are not willing to treat this issue constructively, I should actually endorse Momento's deletion of the sentence, as this is a BLP. And your remark about cutting the article proper with a justification based upon recent removal of key parts of the lead is unbased and sounds rather straw-man to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Downton and Hunt have "highly divergent" statements. They have quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative. Have you read all of those sources recently? The link to resources, including scholars, is at the beginning of this talk section. Plus, it's not "undue weight" to have such a statement in the lead, so that's where I disagree with Momento. The majority of sources, including media, are based upon Rawat's early life. It's not the fault of editors here that Rawat never undergoes mainstream, unscripted interviews anymore. Momento made the edit without any prior discussion and that's a clear violation of the ArbII findings and limitations on editing practices here. Geaves should be given less weight due to his decades-long association with Rawat as a devotee. My last sentence to you about not cutting the article based on Momento's revisions to all the lead paragraphs, was not an accusation, but a simple wish based upon my knowledge of this article's history since 2004. It took years to get the lead the way it was before Momento started doing wholesale revisions recently without allowing thorough discussion, givine folks 24 hours to comment. Please try not to read tone in my posts here based on your preconceptions of myself. I'm using sound, reasoned, and rational argument to state my case without emotional reaction. It's absolutely not personal at all. :) Come up with a counter-proposal to my proposal and let's work this out. All the best. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

momento ripping apart the lead only following his opinion and ignoring the call for concensus doesn't matter, does it? But telling sylviecyn she allegedly is ignoring momento's arguments is a big issue. Hard to understand. But for me she has a point and Momento might have a point. I don't think the better argument tops the concensus, because who decides what is the better argument? You? Surdas (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If we can formulate the argument, it might be helpful to stage a RfC. Maybe more uninvolved editors are listening than we think. Perhaps we are all routine-blind.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and collaborative editing by definition mean that what is at issue is not whose argument is better but rather where is the point where all editors can agree. If editors adhere to the processes Misplaced Pages has in place to reach agreement, the process works quite well. In terms of the lead Momento and Rainer have a strong point. The lead must be an attempt summarize the article and all of the sources. Using one source to summarize many unless that source itself summarizes the sources, creates undue weight and slants the article in a POV direction. A personal opinion by a 22 year old is just that, and should in no way be used to characterize, especially in a BLP, another human beings intellect. Further, intellect is hard to gauge in anybody, so there had better be some very strong sources that directly relate to the content. What I see from the content at the top of this section is that there is some OR going on in terms of description. For example, banal does not refer to intellect. Highly intelligent people can be banal at times. So an editor cannot take a word like banal and extrapolate from it intelligence. The source should directly reference "intelligence", and banal does not do that. I think Rainer has offered a good solution to the dilemma here, and its worth considering.(olive (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

The points of view of the scholars of new religious movements are based on their academic expertise, based upon their extensive studies in their field of NRMS and the only thing we have is what has been written by them. The "22 year old comment" is a red herring because the statement is taken from Stephen A. Kent's book (as described above) that was published in 2001, not when Kent was 22. Kent was 50 when the book was published and was a well-established scholar by t hen. I hope we can dispense with anymore discussion of the "22 year old." Rainer's solution addressess media attention only (much of which is negative press coverage) not scholars. I'm willing to compromise to including both scholars of NRMs and media, and the end result will be that Rawat received negative assessments from scholars and the press. I'm just the messenger. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Its fine to use opinions given by scholars as scholars, anecdotal information is just that and is not scholarly. There is no end result in a neutral article, just information. I know nothing about Rawat but I suggest summarizing the sources as you say, (both media and scholarly seems a good way to go), in as neutral away as possible. Then let the reader decide what to take away from the information we offer. (olive (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Using some of Sylviecyn's words: Especially in the early years after his appearance in the West, Rawat was predominantly ridiculed or criticised by popular press, while there have been quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative, by scholars. Compare it to what we had before in the Lead. Improvement? --Rainer P. (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The aspect of being ridiculed by the press is already in the Lead. The phrase "while there have been quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative, by scholars" doesn't convey any information. In fact, the two most extensive studies of followers by Downton and Galanter are positive. Downer said "the students had changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life" and "Aside from all the psychological and social explanations one could offer to explain their conversions, the fact is that, during the Knowledge session or afterward in meditation, these young people had a spiritual experience which deeply affected them and changed the course of their lives. It was an experience which moved many to tears and joy, for they had found the answer they had been seeking. It was an experience which gave their lives more positive direction, meaning, and purpose. It was an experience which brought them into a new relationship to life and removed many blocks to growth. It was an experience-which sages have spoken about throughout history-of the oneness of life". Galanter said ""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". I believe it is impossible to summarise this sort of detailed opinion plus what Chrysidies, Schnabel, Geaves Hunt, Kent, et al said into a sentence or two in the Lead, so it is best to leave it to the reader to discover these opinions in the article.Momento (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, the ridicule bit needs not appear twice, so we can scratch one. But I disagree that the other part of the sentence conveys no information. It signals 1) that there are scholarly works, which are 2) going to be elaborated on further back in the article, and that they 3) come to divergent assessments. That is IMO enough for the Lead. It may keep a reader i:nterested enough to read on. I would not at this point value the differing results but keep it simple. The lead is already longer than a summary should be.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article". I gave this proposal a lot of thought before making it and the edit. I really can't see a way to introduce an opinion.Momento (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how generally mentioning scholarly works "teases" a reader, but may perhaps create interest. No promises are made, no opinion stated. And if a reader is not willing to read past the Lead - which may be a considerable percentage - at least he/she learns that there has been scholarly attention.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What you are proposing is exactly what WP:LEAD advises against. You suggest that there are "positive and negative " opinions but don't state what they are. .Momento (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not how I read WP:Lead.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a language thing. Compare "When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement" or "As Rawat got older some things happened". The first is loaded with important facts that are unique to PR. The second says things happened but doesn't say what they are.Momento (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there some middle ground between Rainer's summary and Momento's points. The summary could be expanded somewhat to give more information while still summarizing rather than being too specific. (olive (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

I can't even begin to think how I would summarise the wealth of scholastic material. I like the way the Lead is, chronological facts from 1957 to 2011+. Followed by a summary of Rawat's claim to fame the Knowledge he teaches.Momento (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is wealth of scholastic material, it should mentioned in the lead. A lead is by definition summarizing, and that summary can be more or less specific simply dependent on who is doing the summary. But I assume you're not suggesting leaving the reference content out but that it will be difficult to summarize, If that is the case then even a simple summary will do for now while leaving out a summary of the scholastic content because there is so much of it would not be an option. (olive (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

I disagree. Your analogy is not logical. Some things happened really does not mean anything, but not everybody who has been ridiculed by the press has also been covered in a more or less scholarly manner, as a contrast to the main stream public reaction. There is so much space for scholarly content in the article that it actually should not be left unmentioned, but nobody can expect a thorough evaluation of the findings in the Lead, so mentioning that there have been divergent assessments is not only legitimate but required. Of course one can change the wording, or the placement.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at the Teaching section and the Teachings of Prem Rawat article there isn't a great divergence. The majority of scholars describe what Rawat is teaching in a neutral way.Momento (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

O.k., then we could perhaps switch divergent for in a neutral way. It is still a notable information for the summary, and a lot better than that awkward Kent remark.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My thought given this discussion is that the Kent comment is not the whole or even real issue. I wonder if it would be a good idea to lay our what should be in the lead by category then simply fill in with a summary of the information. Right now it appears that mention of scholastic research, and general responses have been left out of the lead. (olive (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Of the anomalies in the Lead the Kent comment was perhaps the most serious. Highlighting one section of one scholar's opinion to the exclusion of all others. Most of the article and most of the Lead is sourced from scholars. Their singular contribution is the fourth para description of what Rawat does. Responses are covered by "His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status".Momento (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with I can't even begin to think how I would summarise the wealth of scholastic material, I can't either. The Kent issue was the one that could be comparatively easy to fix, and that has taken years and seems to be not finished yet. I think, our awareness is growing while we're going on, and public attention seems to be shifting. When people today hear about Rawat and then look him up in WP, it will just not explain enough to display him as some freaky cult leader from the 70es, who has somehow managed to survive after he has had his day. The article must also offer information which supports an understanding of the ongoing phenomenon, to lessen cognitive dissonance. Of course one who has nothing to offer cannot in a single handed effort develop tools like the TPRF or WOPG over the course of several decades. There must be an explanation for that, which satisfies the intelligence of an interested reader. That was why the controversial Kent bit was such a highlighted issue and has to go from the Lead, and to imbed or balance it would take way too much space. But there should be a sentence there that indicates that there was far more than only that stereotype press reaction. I don't insist on any wording.

Now we have 3 positions: 1) Sylviecyn propagates no change at all, for stability reasons, or would even have "banal" included additionally. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 2) Momento finds it impossible to address the scholar issue in one ore two sentences in an appropriate way, that would not start endless debates and possibly still not lead to consensus, and would rather delete. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 3) I propose one sentence that attempts to - admittedly - very roughly summarize much of the article content, without going into details. Anybody can help with the wording, which can certainly be improved. --Rainer P. (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems right. I think the major points are already covered in the Lead and the last para does a fair job of summarising Rawat's teaching which is his claim to notability. I don't see what else needs to be summarised in the Lead.Momento (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see changed before the scholarly sources get further discussed is the phrase "but he was ridiculed by the media". It seems to imply that the ridicule was universal and without exception, which we cannot say. "Largely ridiculed" seems more accurate and cautious. Rumiton (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Rumiton. The article says "His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader", so something less universal would be appropriate. The Lead suggests he was ridiculed for his "supposed divine nature" but I don't see that in the article but there certainly is a a slab about "possessions, money" that might warrant a mention in the Lead. etc.Momento (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I have agreed to be less grumpy on this article and will start now. Nobody likes grumpy people. Rumiton (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're back, Rumiton! I agree with adding "largely", as it helps precision. I also suggest an addition after ...ridiculed, something like: and criticised for his lifestyle. And I agree we should find something more precise for that divine nature bit.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to deal with the kinds of attacks that are tossed around in this article. My comment here was a beginning of suggesting the lead be rewritten, "My thought given this discussion is that the Kent comment is not the whole or even real issue. I wonder if it would be a good idea to lay our what should be in the lead by category then simply fill in with a summary of the information. Right now it appears that mention of scholastic research, and general responses have been left out of the lead." While Momento made a good point in the opening of this thread, I would make one final general statement which In my comments I had hoped to address, and that is that the lead does not summarize the content in the article, and should include per NPOV more of the article's pejorative content. I have no desire to be attacked as I have been here nor to watch anyone else being attacked as Momento has been whatever his POV might be. And I'd note that editors with single person accounts might ask themselves if they have biases. The editors on this page have chased away two uninvolved editors and more will follow unless the tone on this article changes. Frustration is a given on a contentious article. Frustration does not mean attacks are OK.(olive (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

Olive, I want you to know that your contributions are appreciated by me, for one, and probably by most editors here. The article is contentious, because the subject is. Our chance is the strict adherence to WP rules and policies. A fresh angle is certainly welcome on this old battlefield! Also, when we perhaps have grown a little hard-skinned, you have rightfully supported civility, thank you. Hope you keep it up and remain with us.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Littleolive, please stick around. The recent comments from you and other editors shows that ad hominem attacks will no longer be tolerated and at last we can concentrate on content rather than allegiances. There are still problems with the article which reflect in the Lead so I'm interested in how you see both developing. As for biases, that is not a necessary product of SPA. One of the most biased editors on this article has made tens of thousands of edits to hundred of articles.Momento (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an SPA is not necessarily biased, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I mean to say, not clearly, obviously, is that SPAa can develop a kind of tunnel vision which doesn't necessarily help them maintain an unbiased position. Any editor of course can get caught up in an article and lose perspective. Contention doesn't come from an article intrinsic to the topic or subject in my opinion, but in how we view and deal with that article, although certain topics will spark contention more readily than others. I think both sides here have to be careful. Sticking to the merely technical aspects of writing an article, ie, the lead must summarize what's in the article and the article must represent the mainstream whatever that is rather than focusing on Rawat himself will make editing easier. And frankly, articles that are either pejorative or flatter to an extreme are red flags for most intelligent readers, so dealing with the sources in a neutral way will honour the topic in the best way. We don't have the right to harm whatever our positions are , and frankly we can harm with too much positive or the opposite. I'll get off my soapbox now, :O) and I may have some time to look at the lead in the next few days.(olive (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC))

Excellent Littleolive.Momento (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Olive. In the lead, the lifestyle- and possessions-issue should be covered, and also the cult issue, both in a NPOV way. For the first I suggest something along Especially in the beginning years, he was largely ridiculed for his low age and his claim to be able to show a way to directly experience the Divine, and he was criticised for his apparently opulent lifestyle and wealth. We can surely warrant that from the article body.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Really?? I thought he was ridiculed for both he and his followers claims that he was 'The Lord of The Universe' etc. I'd like to see any reference (not written by followers such as Geaves) which support your frankly untrue version which is shot through with weasel words like 'apparently' . Is 'NPOV' supposed to mean that we kowtow to the embarrassment and denial current followers (and Rawat himself) exhibit about his former proclamations of Divinity and being ridiculously opulent as a result of the success of that perception? PatW (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel neither embarrassement nor a need for denial. Rather I feel harassement from unconstructive innuendo and imputation.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

experience the divine? He said i will show you God! Why watering it down, so it becomes digestable for readers. Don't you get a feeling that this is going to be a pamphlet for rawat rather than an article of an encyclopedia? Surdas (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Surdas. AND...I'm not accusing you personally of embarrassment and denial Rainer P. Please stop suggesting I'm harrassing you. I feel you are all trying to make me the scapegoat for all the aggression here but can you give it a break? This is not a personal attack. You cannot take every objection and criticism of premies as an attack on you - but maybe you do because what I'm saying might apply to you as a premie. Sorry but that's the price for premies editing here - they/we are a kind of a part of Rawat's story here and it's not a matter of harassment but more challenging your arguments. This is a serious question about the Encyclopaedic summary of a HIGHLY controversial and contentious man. The guy that threw a cream pie in his face in Detroit nearly died when irate premies smashed his skull in with a hammer. He now has died. That was widely reported. Many people have come up with pertinent arguments that Rawat and followers have conspired to deny the past. There was the burning of all the old magazines that worshipped and proclaimed him as 'The Lord'. The Peace Is Possible book turned out to be a rewrite of his life (essentially paid for by him or his supporters). There is a movement of disaffected ex-premies who've protested publicly this - and it has been reported in local newspapers here in the UK. Rawat's organisation publicly condemned 'ex-premies' as a "Hate Group"- there are dozens of anti-Rawat websites that people looking at this article will aware of and see the huge discrepancy in the reporting here. The whole history here has been one of premie editors trying to deny his former Divinity Claims despite the HUGE repeatedly presented evidence that he encouraged people to believe he was The 'Perfect Master' and 'Superior Power In Person'. Just look at the History pages (and my Talk Page) Before Maelefique (neutral editor) vanished the other week he said he was working on addressing exactly the issue of Rawat's 'Divinity'. Sorry, but your summary sentence smacks to me of the opposite of more NPOV. By far the majority of press reports have criticised or mocked a) his Divinity (they were always asking him if he was God etc). b) his flamboyant, wealthy lifestyle and of course c) his age. There was no doubt or 'apparently' about his opulent lifestyle and, I doubt if you can find any evidence that he was criticised for his 'claim to be able to show a way to directly experience the Divine' (is that your phrasing?) Of course there may be some criticism somewhere like that. But I wonder why that has been presented instead of the more prevalent accusations about his personal divinity. Probably because it is less contentious to say someone teaches just 'how to get in touch with the Divine within us all' . That is so NOT what it was all about. That is clearly now the current message BUT the predominant additional message throughout his life has been 'gratitude' and devotion to the one who shows you how to meditate - ie him. Serving him directly was a stated requirement of his teachings as was devotion to him. What exactly do you think I am harrassing you about or that I am hinting at with innappropriate innuendo? PatW (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of "divine". "Divine" is an adjective. A "guru" by definition is divine. Rawat stopped using the word "Guru" in his title in the early 80s as the article says "Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations".Momento (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I adhere to the generally accepted meaning of the word "Divine" just to allay the confusion you suggest. Rainer's proposed wording was concerned with describing the "early years" before Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status" hence my criticism.PatW (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The third sentence of the second para does say "His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status". As for the pie incident, it is very badly presented in the article. The source is an article titled "Guru wants to Help" and says

"Pat Halley, the notorious pie thrower, was brutally attacked in Detroit by two assailants who then fled the scene. When local members of the Divine Light Mission heard of this incident and became aware that Divine Light Mission personnel or devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji, said to be a 15-year-old perfect master and spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission, might be involved, they notified the young Guru at his residence in Los Angeles.

Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody.

Local and national officials of Divine Light Mission say they are extremely shocked and appalled by the occurance of this event; for the brutal action taken is in direct opposition to all that the Mission stands for and to the expressed wishes of Guru Maharaj Ji. The young Guru himself said he was amazed when the news was conveyed to him. He expressed his regret at the incident and concern for the welfare of Mr. Halley. He further extended his regrets and condolences to Pat Halley's family and friends with the assurance that Divine Light Mission wishes to help in whatever way possible and to see that persons responsible for this event are brought to justice".

And the way you describe Pat Halley beating and death, it might seem that they're related. Halley was beaten in 1973 and died in 2012.Momento (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Halley recently committed suicide. Yes, it would indeed be conjecture to associate this with his earlier injuries. Sorry if it read that way. However I agree the story is not well presented. I found the incident covered in Divine Light Mission article. Maybe that's where it belongs. There is some criticism of Rawat for his handling of the affair - that is not apparent here. Whether it should be I'm npt sure. "He should have pursued this matter more aggressively and made sure the perpetrators were apprehended and tried in a court of law". p163 Soul Rush. A 1974 New York Times article reports: "the record shows that neither assailant - both of whom are extremely prestigious members of the Mission - has been removed from the Guru's good graces. One of them, a mahatma, or high priest, charged with initiating new members into the organization. was "shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The other, an American who is considered the reincarnation of St. Peter, has eluded the law with equal success." I'm not sure how the reference to the incident here could be improved. Maybe Olive has some ideas?PatW (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

PatW, you left off a sentence. After the DLM found and held the perpetrators the Detroit police refused to arrest them. The New York Times later reported that "This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". And as this article explains when Rawat split with his mother "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". And as you know the mahatma concerned left Rawat to go with his mother.Momento (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not "leave off" anything. I was fully aware of the info that HAS been reported. What I have pointed out what HAS NOT been said. There is no evidence that the mahatma left Rawat to 'go with his mother'. To the contrary the report explicitly says that he was 'shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The fact he later left Rawat is immaterial. PatW (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since they contradict each other, it's good to mention both. As the article states Rawat was not in charge until four months after the beating, so had little control over the Mahatma. And I'm not claiming any "evidence" that "the mahatma concerned left Rawat to go with his mother". I suggested YOU knew via your involvement with the anti-Rawat forum.Momento (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please could you tell me exactly which article you referring to? PatW (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This article.Momento (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In my almost humble opinion, any reference to Prem Rawat's divinity should be accompanied by his repeated statement that WE ARE ALL DIVINE or that GOD IS WITHIN US ALL, as all respected gurus and yogis have said for thousands of years, as well as Jesus, as you can learn in "The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ within You", by Paramahansa Yogananda, if you have the willpower to read its 1800 pages. Otherwise for me it would be just the opposite of "white-washing", that is, "black-painting". Momento, I am going to propose you for the Nobel Price for Patience. Does anyone know what happened to Will Beback? Congratulations to Administrator "The Blade of the Northern Lights" for his/her comment. I find it very right and fair. There is no better way to control emotions than yoga, meditation and Knowledge. This intellectual tennis continues to be amusing for me. Have a nice time :-)--188.77.70.47 --PremieLover (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Except what you're saying isn't factual. Prem Rawat ran his NRM (and still does behind the scenes) accepting all the direct worship towards himself as being the Lord of the Universe and the divine source (not just the teacher) of the divine experience of the practice of Knowledge. That was the purpose of ashrams, at DECA, etc.: to surrender ourselves, body, mind and soul, while worshipping him personally and he has never disabused premies of that, except to say "I am proud to be a human being," which is a strange thing for anyone to say. That's a fact and it isn't "black-painting," as you put it, to include his divinity in the lead. It's quite important, imo, in order to accurately write this biolgraphy, to include these facts. All the best. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is not factual? That God and Knowledge are within us all is something he has been repeating ever since Prem Rawat came to the West, and you can hear/read it in numerous speeches. It is difficult to understand the reason why someone who knows the subject can say that is not factual.--PremieLover (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum or discussion board (See the top of this page for more info), so I'm not going to engage you in a conversation that hasn't anything to do with this article. If you have a specific edit suggestion, please feel free to do so, with sources. Thanks  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings PL, WillBeback has been indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages, indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed and desysopped (removed as an admin) for conduct unbecoming an administrator. This resulted from his action regarding an editor on the TM article with one editor noting "his behavior, at topics such as Scientology, Prem Rawat, Lyndon LaRouche and Transcendental Meditation, is troubling. A variety of editors on these topics have accused him of ownership, intimidation, disruption, disregard for noticeboards; obstruction, sabotage and truth twisting". I have received several apologies regarding the lack of credence given to the irrefutable evidence I presented about WillBeback's harassment of me going back to 2008. Better late than never.Momento (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Momento, thanks for the information about Will Beback. Despite his alias, he Won't Beback for some time :-)I am not surprised. I once asked that Will Beback be banned. I cannot understand why a person would dedicate so much time to fight against a specific person he does not believe in, Prem Rawat, when there are so many others religious movements. Now I hear he was also against TM and Maharishi Mahesh yogi, the Beatles' guru, so there is only Osho left of the 3 best known gurus in the West. I can understand followers' interest and efforts in their own subject, but not the life-long crusades by anyone against Prem Rawat or anyone else, something similar to a phobia. What a way to waste time. Best regards --PremieLover (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread is too long and discussion has digressed into off topic subjects. I suggest we close it out. I also suggest that we keep paragraph 4 of the lead as it is, at least for now (I'm referring to Momento's Aug 31st edit). I now see problems with the deleted sentence. I've been quite ill for going on 2 weeks so I don't know how much I can contribute to this article until I feel better. If I can spend the time, I will.  :) All the best to everyone. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon, Sylviecyn. Perhaps one final point. Will Beback was in fact quite active at Osho, mostly being carefully correct, but occasionally revealing his anti-Eastern Religious bias. I recall him at one stage fighting for the inclusion of a statement by a born-again Christian that accused Osho of further crimes for which he had not been tried, and described his eyes as "luminous, with an almost satanic look" (quote may not be exact.) This stuff will be revisited in more detail in the unlikely event that that user tries to edit Misplaced Pages again. Rumiton (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

(Suggestion by PremieLover) I hope Momento, Rumiton or someone can find sources for Prem Rawat's statement that "we are all divine" or that "God is within us all" and support its inclusion in the reference to Prem's divinity. We could include the famous TV interview when he was 14 in the US, where he was directly asked "Are you God?" and he said "My Knowledge is God", together with his statement "Knowledge is not something I have in my pocket and I give it to you and then you have it, but something that is already inside of you". I think an addition like this is fair, but I don't have Momento's patience to engage in endless arguments with anti-Prem crusaders, sorry. :-) Should I start a new thread to propose this addition? There are too many opinions criticizing Prem by people who show they know nothing about yoga and meditation, but little about what Prem says.--PremieLover (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many quotes here..Momento (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors may not cherrypick quotes to support a point of view. Imagine the chaos that would follow if that were allowed? We all have to find reputable sources that support our understandings, not primary sources. And I am sorry, there is no substitute for patience on Misplaced Pages. (But I hope you stick around anyway.) Rumiton (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are at least two sentences (perhaps more) mentioning his divinity without further explanation, in which a reader who knows nothing about the subject, and the subject’s subject, will think that Prem claims to be God and therefore is crazy, or his followers consider him God, and therefore are crazy”. I don’t find this fair, nor good for Misplaced Pages. But if this cannot be changed, ok , it cannot be changed.--PremieLover (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said above "Divine" is an adjective. A "guru" by definition is divine". in the early 80s Rawat stopped using the word "Guru" in his title, abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" and "The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques".Momento (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ron Geaves

While it seems likely that Geaves was or is a Rawat follower, I don't see a RS that states this so, per the stringent Misplaced Pages BLP standards I have removed content which states Geaves is or was a follower and which has had a citation request since 2009. (olive (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

Agree.Momento (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remove the same from the Misplaced Pages article on Ron Geaves which provides a source for this sentence "Geaves was one of the earliest Western students of Maharaji (Prem Rawat, known also as Guru Maharaj Ji). Geaves has written a number of papers related to Maharaji and his organizations, such as the Divine Light Mission." On the other hand, if you deem that source valid then would you think it appropriate to reinsert the information here? PatW (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I had removed the content in the Ron Greaves article since the source Wayback Machine is not really a source but a tool, and I don't see any sources that give this information. There may well be one so I'm asking for a quote from such a source if anyone has it. Both this and the Greaves articles are BLPs and require pretty stringent sourcing. I'm not the definitive word on anything here, obviously, so if anyone disagrees just speak up. I don't have a problem reverting myself if there's concern. In this case though, since we are talking about BLPs, I'd like to wait until we have a RS to return the content to the article.(olive (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

i don't understand, there is still a sentence and a source said says that he is/was a follower in the Geaves article. Can i help to find a reason to remove even that so that this article can become more of a pamphlet? Surdas (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI Olive, the source used in the Geaves article is from the book 'Peace is Possible' by Andrea Cagan. Since this book has been recognised by editors as essentially a 'Vanity Press' publication (verging on being a Primary Souce) there was historically, consensus here amongst the editors to only use it as a RS for uncontentious material and then with extreme care and discussion. The same view was taken regarding Geaves' academic papers on Rawat. It was also thought important to mention Geaves was a follower in this article, where his work is used as a source for sentences like the one from which you've removed the content. I actually don't have the Peace Is Possible book to hand but others certainly do, so perhaps they could locate that reference about Geaves if you continue to require it. I have his academic paper but he does not state he is an early follower anywhere. I would like you to revert please as I still take the view that readers should be informed when sources are not entirely neutral.PatW (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

An afterthought - don't you already have the RS to the content in the reference to it coming from 'Peace Is Possible' over on the Ron Geaves article? If so can't you revert now without us having to produce the actual wording from the book? PatW (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

PatW is incorrect about Geaves. He is a professor of religion, published by numerous academic publishers and a reliable source for this and any other article.Momento (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

i don't believe that olive has overseen the source in the article on geaves that he was a or is a follower of rawat.he simply didn't revert his edit in this article and i wonder what is going on here.Surdas (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. This is what I did. The content here saying Geaves was a Rawat student was not sourced, and a citation was asked for. We shouldn't leave unsourced content in a BLP especially when it is contested. I assume the book has the information we need but that's not good enough in BLP land so I asked for the quote which will confirm the information . Its no big deal to then readd the content back in. Books by Greaves are at the least a RS for the author's personal information, And yes he is a RS possibly dependent on the publisher of his books, IMO.

The content I removed from the Geaves article was sourced directly to Wayback Machine which is not a RS and I did check the archives of the RS NoticeBoard to make sure this was the position of the community. so I removed it. This is not the same content that we are dealing with here.

We could just add the source from the Geaves article for the content here which says Geaves was a Rawat follower, but given the contentious nature of this talk page, I thought it safer to ask for the quote.

This confusion is my fault. I shouldn't comment tired. I hope this explains everything. I am not against someone else adding the source from the Geaves article to this article, but for the long run, I think it would be best to make sure we have a quote confirming the information. And a BLP should never have a citation request. Unsourced content especially if contested should be removed immediately.(olive (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

As an added thought, consensus is not definitive over time. It can change, and with new editors things can change. That 's just the nature of Misplaced Pages. I'm not interested in fighting about anything, but we should expect that consensus could change, and past arguments and discussion simply no longer be pertinent to present situations The problem we have with identifying an author's religion, spiritual path, and other personal information is that unless we treat all authors this way our selectivity itself may be considered a POV. I'm not saying this in reference to the Geaves content, necessarily, its just a general observation. (olive (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Does someone have the book to help us out with this quote? (olive (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

To Momento - You say I am wrong about Geaves but offer no suggestion as to what I am wrong about. I never suggested Geaves was NOT a RS in Misplaced Pages terms - I simply pointed out that he is known to have an obvious and reliably sourced bias. Funny how you can overlook the fact his bias clearly influences his academic work, when you passionately oppose Rawat-critical newspaper reports or certain other 'Rawat critical' books or comments for reasons such as the writer was too young or suchlike. Another very good reason that we included the info about him being a follower was that his writings on the Indian Roots (Hagiography) of Rawat directly contradict the academic work of far more well-known and respected writers on the subject such as Mark Jurgensmeyer. For example Geaves says Jurgensmeyer's tracing Rawat's guru succession to the Radhosoami sect is wrong. So Geaves' version of Rawta's history is actually contentious and we worded that section very carefully and as fairly as possible. This was one of the few edits I was actually involved in. So Geaves is technically a Reliable Source for this article but for balance and interest, and in consideration of the fact that he has been a champion (albeit controversial) 'legitimiser' of Rawat (even deserving a mention in Rawat's autobiography) it is responsible to include the sentence about him being a long-time follower. He is not just an ordinary follower but a prominent one who appears interviewed in current videos made by Rawat's organisation to promote him and who has been involved in Rawat's organisation constantly for years. Furthermore Prem Rawat used the information supplied by Geaves on his own website to claim direct descent from Totapuri (a well-known and respected Indian Guru of yore). Yes that website has now been removed (probably because it was such a transparently tenuous link) and we can't use that.PatW (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess being a follower of a controversial teacher would make me particularly meticolous and thorough. I also guess, Geaves can be counted as benchmark on the subject, and no scholar would think of ignoring his work or devaluate it. So it is POV to expose a single authors mental background, and not the others’, which BTW might even be intriguing, too, but would probably not be helpful here.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed because it was not sourced and a source had been requested. Any other discussion at this point and in reference to this edit is a red herring. Does anyone have the quote from the source so the content can be re added? A discussion on Geaves as a RS is another discussion altogether. I don't mean this comment to sound aggressive in any way. I think given the history here it is easy to get off track, so I'd like to stay on track and I am deliberately and will deliberately ignore discussion that side steps the immediate issues pertaining to the edits being made. Unless we do that you will get bogged down in the same old arguments you have in the past.(olive (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Right on, Olive!--Rainer P. (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Olive, everyone here except me has the book so come on guys...please can we read the quote? PatW (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have it either. I am sure, Rainer, Momento and Rumiton have it, i would have it if i was a follower, but i doubt if they will help us out. Surdas (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't carry mine with me.Momento (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have the German version. Which statement is it exactly that we need?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We need is the bit where it says: "Geaves was one of the earliest Western students of Maharaji" - I would imagine this would be found in the part where Prem Rawat's lineage is covered. If you Google "Peace Is Possible Geaves" there is a reproduced page from PIP ('Invasion from the West pages 110-111) where Ron Geaves is described as a part of a group of early followers who went to India in 1968 - this may not be the relevant part but it may suffice if you can't find that particular sentence. Olive may opine about that. PatW (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have the book in English. Pages 110-111 discuss Geaves' relationship with Sandy Collier and their meeting with premies in Delhi. It doesn't exactly say he became a student of Maharaji at that time, but he clearly did. This is a badly written book that I don't want to annoy myself by rereading. If someone can give me a page ref for his becoming a student or devotee I will look it up. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a section where Rawat's early lineage is covered? If so that will be where to look - that is if it's no hassle.PatW (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ron Geaves is even mentioned verbatim in PIP, with quotation marks, “… and eventually, Charan Anand gave me Knowledge”, between pp. 115 and 116.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to buy the book. :O) I think we can take Rainer's word for it and use the PIP book with the pages he gives with the quote we need. I'll readd the content.(olive (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

Added with a slight adjustment to give equal weight to Geaves as an academic in the field of comparative religion and as a Rawat follower. Both seem critical. (olive (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

Don't feel discouraged to buy the book, Olive. It is not as bad as Rumiton hints, and quite informative. And, still I think it is debatable whether Geaves's personal convictions should be mentioned in that place. He is in no way dependent on Rawat, and there is no COI. He has also been cleared of that by his superiors at Liverpool Hope University, when he was denunciated by Rawat detractors. His inside knowledge through close affiliation to Rawat's teachings was in fact seen as an advantage for in-depth research. There are sources for that.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the point. Both his academic training and experience, and his inside experience give him credibility and inform the reader as to his expertise. I don't see that Geaves' experience with Rawat is negative or positive but simply another kind of knowledge. I believe there is agreement to have that content in place, so rather than march into another discussion to change the agreement on something so insignifcant, I'd suggest we move on.(olive (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

O.k.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK too. I do however think that it is not a matter of exposing Geaves' personal convictions to prove a conflict of interest and thus defame him, as you seem to rather suggest is being maliciously attempted. Surely it is simply a matter of transparent reporting. Why would anyone want to hide Geaves' affiliation? Furthermore if there have been accusations and controversy over Geaves' COI that his university has cleared him of then that too, if it is indeed as well-sourced as you say, may be of public interest and might well be appropriate to add to Ron Geaves page. Some editors here seem to think that these sorts of things are not permissable because they violate rules on BLPs. I'd be interested to know if Olive can shed some light on this. Secondly, further to Olive's comment that 'Geaves' experience with Rawat is negative or positive but simply another kind of knowledge' - I agree, but when that knowledge is contentious or even factually erroneous, then I think it would be wrong not to offer some clue as to why that might be if it is available. As I have pointed out, Geaves' version of Rawat's lineage, however correct it may be, refutes what other scholars have written and he has attracted some accusations as a 'legitimiser' of PR. Finally, before you lump me in with Geaves' detractors - that is not the case. I felt his tracing the lineage to Advait Mat deserved an inclusion here, I respected his views and made the edit after discussion with Rumiton, Jayen etc (this was Sept 2010). Contrary to the recent assertions from Momento both here and on my Talk Page, I do not doubt his being a reliable source but strongly suggest that not being fully transparent about him where we can is paramount to hiding pertinent information. I'll leave it at that now and look forward to seeing what Olive proposes to move onto next with interest. Thanks.PatW (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can move on to a summary of the reception section in Teachings of Prem Rawat as was discussed earlier and then adding that summary here? I'll look at it later today and start to work on it unless someone else wants to, or disagrees with adding the summary here. (olive (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

Regarding expanding what we know of sources such as Geaves, and giving the reader some of their background, I also think that text in Teachings of Prem Rawat stemming from Jan van der Lans could benefit from a reference that he was a Roman Catholic "religious psychologist" who trained as a priest, and whose even-handedness was questioned even by his own colleagues. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that would come across as highly over-paranoid. Geaves' background as a follower of the subject of the article is on a totally different scale of of bias. To view the 'even-handedness' of critical academics from other religious persuasions as being in the same league is surely wrong. My view is that known critics of Rawat who are former followers (maybe such as Mike Finch who has written a critical book called 'Without The Guru") should be clearly identified as ex-followers (as Geaves should be as a current and relatively high-profile follower) . But surely not every Tom, Dick or Harry whose religious persuasion might influence their views on Prem Rawat. The buck has to stop somewhere doesn't it? PatW (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Momento (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And paranoid? I don't see anything paranoid about telling the reader that the person who made such a critical set of statements on what was seen as an eastern religion, was being paid by a traditionally activist Catholic university to present the Roman Catholic viewpoint. A highly relevant fact for a living biography, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming a COI in van der Lans' case is not far fetched. I know personally of a theologian's dissertation (and subsequent career!) being dismissed because its subject was Rawat's teachings. OTOH Geaves is not dependent on Rawat or any of his organisations.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, even the unconcealed Rawat-attack website (prem-rawat-bio.org) admits: "Professor Ron Geaves of Liverpool Hope University is the only academic of religion who has bothered to do any "research" or write any papers dealing with Prem Rawat for the past 20 years." In their context, it is presumably meant to underline Rawat's alleged lack of notability, but it unintentionally concedes to Geaves the edge in actual research. The quality of Geaves's actual work is not addressed.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

This article seems to lack some aspects of "reception" which should in my opinion carry a lot of weight, that is scholarly sources. I realize the Teachings of Prem Rawat article has such content but I think for the the reception section here to be complete there should be at the least a summary of what appears in the "Teachings" article. Then there should be some kind of reception content in the lead which includes this addition. Right now the small amount of content on media in the lead doesn't seem to give a good sense of how Rawat was/is received. I'll wait for discussion to make any changes.(olive (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

• PS Of course discussion should focus entirely on the content with out any sidelights onto editor behaviour or other red herrings. Ok? <|>< (olive (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

I can't remember why the Teachings article was spun off but it would be great to bring back the scholars.Momento (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember it was separated because the article was deemed too long... word counts etc.PatW (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We can always summarize, make it short.(olive (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

I would like to do some work on the reception section which could eventually impact the lead. Just to let everyone know.(olive (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps we should start with a definition of "reception." I have never understood what it meant. Rumiton (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lack of response suggests that perhaps nobody else understands it either. If that is the case, maybe we should delete that section name and redistribute the sub-sections elsewhere? Rumiton (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at how to proceed, the heading "Biography" is misleading as well, as the whole article is a living biography. We need a new heading for that section which is a timeline for the subject's work. Really, the whole article could be much better organised. Rumiton (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception refers to how Rawat has been perceived, for example in the press, in scholarly publication, and by his followers. There has been a move across Misplaced Pages to distribute criticism through out the different sections of an article rather than in a specific section devoted to criticism so reception could be dealt with that way as well.(olive (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

Then would not perceptions be a better word? Rumiton (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I agree that moving the sub-sections to other relevant areas looks like a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So I just did it. Didn't take anything out, but revert and discuss if it isn't liked. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with LittleOlive. Disperse Media Coverage, Academic coverage and Following through the article. Academic can go into Teachings. Following and Media throughout the article.Momento (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What Rumiton did isn't exactly what I meant. I meant more to integrate the content within the article which is perhaps what Momento was suggesting. Also, it was only a suggestion. I'm fine with it if others are but integration is a a big change and I'd suggest we wait for consensus before the change is made.(olive (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

Courier Mail Article

Here's an article about PR's visit to Australia..Momento (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus! Obviously this type of reporting style does not belong to the past.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything usable in that. FWIW, I was the "devotee of 40 years." Another focuser on money, though a bit more intelligently, was the Ipswich Advertiser. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the final attendance figure was 4250, which maxed out the venue. Rumiton (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Academic coverage?

The contents of this section is almost entirely about Charisma as per its previous title "Charisma and Leadership". If the heading is to be "Academic Coverage" we need to put a far broader selection of academic coverage in. I'd be inclined to summarise the "charisma" material and include it in the "Teachings" section which is almost entirely "Academic".Momento (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it as a whole, I'd disperse Media Coverage (largely the Der Spiegel quote and a bit about "cult") and the"Size and Nature of Following" through out the article.Momento (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It's all just baby steps towards a better article. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Though even summarising the charisma topic isn't easy, the sources flat out contradict or refute each other. Keeping them in their own section at least stops the main body from becoming schizophrenic.

Stephen J. Hunt said that in Rawat's case the notion of spiritual growth is not derived — as is traditionally the case with other gurus — from his personal charisma...

J. Gordon Melton says Rawat's personal charisma was one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960s counterculture...

Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the Western students of Prem Rawat, writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure... (From Teachings of Prem Rawat.)

Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader...

Lucy DuPertuis... described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru; adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master; and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees...(factors other than charisma.)

We aren't allowed to synthesise these opinions, and it would be original research (or would it?) to say something like "academics have taken widely differing views of Prem Rawat." Rumiton (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be o.k. for the summary. I made a similar proposal before.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to integrate Academic comments into Teachings section

First suggestion is to take the entire "Academic Coverage" section and relocate it into the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article.

Then we can summarise it with two sentences at the beginning of the "Teachings" section of this article.

Something like - A number of scholars have defined Rawat as a "charismatic' leader", according to Max Weber's classifications, and that his authority and popularity is largely a result of his personal charisma. Others say that his authority is derived from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals applying them. Some scholars say his teachings have their basis in the North Indian Sant Mat or Radhasoami tradition, which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart. Ron Geaves, a professor in comparative religion studies and a student of Rawat's, argues that this is not quite correct; referring to Rawat's own statements about his lineage, he places Rawat and his father within the tradition established by Totapuri, which also gave rise to the Advait Mat movement. Geaves argues that while the teachings within Totapuri's lineage have similarities with those of the Radhasoami tradition and developed in the same geographical area they are nevertheless distinct. He adds that Rawat "is unusual in that he does not consider his lineage to be significant and does not perceive his authority as resting in a tradition."

Prem Rawat claims that light, love, wisdom and clarity exist within each individual, and that the meditation techniques which he teaches, and which he learned from his father, are a way of accessing them. These techniques are known as the 'Knowledge'. In his public talks he quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian scriptures, but he relies on this inner experience for his inspiration and guidance.

Before they receive the Knowledge, Rawat asks practitioners to promise to give it a fair chance and to stay in touch with him. He also asks that they not reveal the techniques to anyone else, but allow others to prepare to receive the experience for themselves. Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses.

Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith. According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity that can be used by anyone. Aldridge writes that Rawat originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

Comments.Momento (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy with the Aldridge quote, as it implies there has been a change in Rawat's goal. That is contentious and should be balanced by a statement that stresses the continuity of his message, surely we can find one (Geaves?).--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree but let's get the charisma stuff in before we consider other changes.Momento (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this move and this is not what I meant when I suggested an integration of the Reception content into the the article. I was referring to the Reception content in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article and I think there was some agreement to bring a summary of that content here. As well I was referring to integrating Reception content line by line into the rest of the article, but this was only an observation from the way in which criticism has been integrated in other articles. I did agree this might work but looking at it now I don't see an advantage to the suggested moves.

Teaching and Academic are not the same thing. On has to do with Rawat's teaching the other with a response by academics. Nothing is gained by mashing these two topics together, and much is lost in terms of clarity. I apologize for coming late to this discussion. I've been sidetracked with other things but I will look closely later today. I would also suggest an invitation to the other editors on this article who are noticeably absent to make sure you have agreement for this kind of big change. This is a contentious article under arbitration and I'd suggest going slowly and making sure you have agreement for each move.

Per Rumiton's earlier adjustment to the Reception section of this article: I don't see that anything is lost or gained with the change you made, but charisma and leadership aren't the same as academic so I'll revert that part. Then I'd suggest actually summarizing the "academic" content from Teachings of Prem Rawat and moving it here, so that you do have an academic section. If no one does that I'll do it later today.

Once again I apologize for throwing a wrench in the works. I realize I may sound as if I am assuming ownership of this article . I'm not, but I am uninvolved and these are observations of someone with no interest at all in the topic so they may be useful. (olive (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

I appreciate your efforts. And agree that "Teaching and Academic are not the same thing" but I tried to make a start anyway. I'll wait for your proposal.Momento (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Olive with regard to potential loss of clarity. Regarding Rainer's comments about the Aldridge quote being contentious - I don't believe Geaves' or Rawat have commented on his 'goals' in such a way as would contradict Aldridge. So I don't see how it can be contentious - with what? It rather goes without saying that it would be specious to twist their words to suggest this. Aldridge's academic investigations have led him to the conclusion he illiterates and which warrants mentioning. Clearly Rawat did, as he got older, stop proclaiming he was going to 'bring peace to the world' in the solemn prophetic manner he did as a youth, and instead spoke, less dramatically, more of (changing the world by) changing people's hearts' etc. Aldridge's comment makes perfect sense. PatW (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Rawat said in the Peace Bomb satsang "I declare that I will establish peace in this world". Some people have taken this to mean there will be 'peace everywhere in the world'. In the same talk Rawat said "And today I have to say with sorrow that the Knowledge which was once firmly established in this land of India has been slowly disappearing". Clearly "established" doesn't mean omnipresent.Momento (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So if I walked into a room and solemnly announced - "I declare I am going to paint this room pink" and then proceeded to paint one square inch in the corner pink, don't you think most sensible people could be forgiven for having assumed I'd meant that I was going to paint the whole room pink? Also would you not agree that people who then say "Oh well clearly he meant just a square inch" are fairly obviously apologists for a bad joke? PatW (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you said ""I declare I am going to establish pink in this room" then I would accept a single pink rose as full and complete fulfilment of your claim.Momento (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a nice example, but I recall that point being made months ago.

So reading Teachings now, it looks like Prem Rawat is included amongst the academic scholars. That needs attention soon, I think. Rumiton (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The scholarship section is mean to be the academic response to the teachings but I'm not attached to the placement of scholarship or even to the content itself.(olive (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

I just meant that including Religious scholarship as a subsection under his Teachings could be taken to mean his own religious scholarship. Perhaps if we make it something like Responses by religious scholars. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious scholarship

I summarized the scholarship section from the Teachings of Prem Rawat and added it here as I said I'd do, but I'm not convinced its not redundant content so if anyone objects just remove it and move it here, or let me know and I'll be happy to remove it, and or move it here for further discussion. I'm not attached to it in anyway. In general I feel the article is not well organized as there does seem to be a lot of overlapping material. I'll probably move on to other articles but if I can help at any time with an outside opinion I'd be happy to.(olive (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

I don't believe it's in the least redundant. As Rumiton pointed out above, Prem Rawat has not changed the essence of his teachings over the years, although the superficial packaging has changed considerably. As everyone knows I'm for including more information rather than cutting out and changing the wording. The endless rephrasing of existing info is not a good way forward imho and is just a way of introducing the POV of editors. Let the comments of scholars and newspaper reporters stand, with their their own choice of words wherever possible. It's nice to see relevant criticism return to the article such as Paul Schnabel/Van der Lans' pertinent observations.PatW (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit notes, I have made grammatical and format corrections and added Downton the most important of the Rawat scholars. LittleOlive, are you going to add the sources?

Momento (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So Momento, you have now added another highly selective positive quote to further outweigh the minimal representation of critical quotes here. What Olive is probably not entirely aware of is how these 'scholarly' quotes have already been thoroughly 'cleaned' of the large amount criticism offered up by the likes of Downton. Why for example should not some other of Downton's scholarly observations be omitted? ...such as - "Many of the luxuries surrounding America's new gurus are gifts from their followers. Guru Maharaj Ji's not alone among the new gurus who are surrounded by material comforts. A casual glance at the lifestyles of other gurus in America does not turn up any signs of poverty. This raises an obvious question: Why is it that gurus insist on their followers becoming detached from the material world, while they seem to be completely immersed in it?" or "Yet, while many people feel gurus have accumulated more than their share of wealth, their followers believe they are getting no more than they deserve. From the premie point of view, for instance, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulent lifestyle seems in harmony with their view of him as the Lord. They want him to live like the king they feel he is. Idealizing him as they do, they are more than happy to supply him with luxuries." or..."From this perspective, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulence can be understood as a natural outgrowth of his followers' need to idealize him and to set him at a sufficiently great distance so that beliefs in his extraordinary powers are preserved. In short, premies have a stake in maintaining his luxurious lifestyle." or "While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given to him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' needs to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe." or..."Believing the guru to be a saint, premies were ready to conform to his wishes (as well as they could), while many lost the capacity to criticize him. Even during the height of the public scandals which hit the Mission in its formative period, I did not hear premies express even one critical comment about the guru. Given their views of him as the Lord, it was as clearly outside of the realm of possibility for them to oppose or criticize him in any way, as for Moses to have told God that he wanted him to edit the Ten Commandments." or "Devotion to Guru Maharaji seems similar to the type of unquestioning affection children feel for their parents during the time before adoloscence when they are emotionally merged with them. This is one of the reasons that, once formed, a follower's strong emotional bond with a leader is so hard to break, especially when the leader is viewed as Divine." or"I believe there is a time when the devotee's autonomy from a guru, like independence from one's parents, should be achieved, otherwise surrender remains only an instrument of social control to serve the guru's ends, rather than a means of bringing the person into an individual relationship to God and the world. The emotional disengagement of children from their parents seems to take a natural course, but for the adults who have emotionally merged with a guru becoming more independent must be more conscious and deliberate, A danger is that, by idealizing the guru, the devotee preserves the distance between them so that it always appears as if more needs to be done. This of course provides the devotee with the rationale for the continuation of dependence on him. Some followers may be able to face the trauma of separation, while others may have to be pushed away when the time is right. If both the guru and devotee are psychologically or socially dependent on the relationship, then neither are likely to initiate a rift and the devotee may become permanently fixed in that regressive state, never to go beyond the role of obediant child."PatW (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Littleolive said she was summarising the "Scholars" section of the "Teachings" article. The "scholars" section contains 712 words of commentary from George D. Chryssides, Ron Geaves, Stephen J. Hunt, James V. Downton, Marc Galanter (MD) and Paul Schnabel. To leave Downton out, which I'm sure was accidental, is to leave out one sixth of the material being summarised . I have corrected that error by giving Downton one sixth of the summary..Momento (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thus making an unbalanced section even worse. That's some correction. Do you think Downton's critical comments should be represented for balance? If not then why not? PatW (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll never get a 50:50 positive critical mix because most scholars and most sources report on Rawat from a NPOV.Momento (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Downton belongs in that summary, I missed it, and yes I'll add the sources. Apologies for that. Very tired today and off to bed right now with a migraine coming on, I'll get to the sources tomorrow night. My fault entirely. I don't see how the section can be unbalanced. I simply summarized what is in the mother article and in fact left more content in the summary on the pejorative content than on the positive. So I'm mystified. (olive (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

Take it easy Littleolive, headaches are a symptom of editing this article.Momento (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But if it is a true migraine, my deepest and sincerest sympathy. Horrible things. Rumiton (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above excerpt from Downton, the introduction to his statement and his conclusion have been omitted -- obviously an oversight, as these were the critical parts of his analysis. After thinking about the reason for the gifts people gave to Maharaji he goes on to say, It is difficult to understand the motives behind Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle, just as it is impossible to know whether he is, as premies believe, an authentic saint. I have thought about this issue a great deal and have come to the conclusion that there is no way of knowing, by objective measures, whether the guru is authentic or not. That can only be determined subjectively, for, as one premie told me, "You can only see Guru Maharaj Ji with your heart." Instead of considering the guru's motives and authenticity, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask whether his followers have benefited from their relationship to him and what impact his efforts are having on our society. Then he gives some examples of the changed lives and behaviors which left him in no doubt that they and society had indeed benefited. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't get to the sources tonight. Sorry. Yes it is a real migraine. I get them every now and then, this one is one of the bad ones. (olive (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

I've inserted the sources. Take a break.Momento (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have sat with people who were going through those things. I'm impressed that you can even type. Rumiton (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling much better. Thanks for the good thoughts...:O) And thanks for Momento for adding the sources. I have no idea why I overlooked transferring them them. Maybe the migraine coming on.

Per Pat's comment above: I've checked to see if I can get an online view of this book and I can't. So I'd suggest a second look into this source by those who have the book, with assumptions of good faith "O) to make sure the content added in both this article and the Teachings of Prem Rawat truly represents the general tone of the book. I simply summarized content that was already in place, and with out the source feel it wouldn't be appropriate for me to make source-based changes to either article.(olive (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

I think it would be good if you could take a look for yourself. Try this . Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks.(14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

If you search for the words "an authentic saint" that will land you pretty much in the centre of the discussion. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC) The author rambles a bit, but from page 154 onwards he presents his observations of Knowledge practitioners. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, its a quick read.(olive (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Does anyone now have anything they wish to add to the way Downton's findings are expressed in the articles? No POV cherrypicking please, it needs to be something that fairly describes his considered views. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reading and would be happy to add something if needed in the next days.(olive (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

I won't get to this now despite my reading and now owning Peace Is Possible :O) and think its best to leave this to experts. If you ever need an outside opinion I'm glad to help out. Just let me know.(olive (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

Dealing with Sources/Downton

Concerning Downton:The book I read online is about a study and seems it should be related as such. I don't think what is in the article really does justice to the book, not whether the content in the article is pejorative or positive, but it just doesn't indicate much about Downton's research. I think what you have to decide is whether you are representing the authors in terms of scholarship and if you are then are you doing so in a comprehensive way? This is the way one should write about the scholarship seems, that is, summarize the publications of each academic giving a sense of how they saw the topic. Alternately you can lay out a topic and collect information on that topic making sure to get a good overview of the mainstream in that area. Just some thoughts on how you might proceed further with this article.(olive (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

I thought, at this stage, it was better to insert what we had in the Teachings article rather than start to reevaluate/rewrite Downton.Momento (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. You did just what had been decided to do and that is summarize and move content from the Teachings article. My comment wasn't meant as a criticism merely a way of thinking about the future if needed or wanted. I come out of an environment where there is a lot of brainstorming and improvising going on and so I tend to do the same here. Always ideas never definitive in any way. Apologies for any sense of criticism.(olive (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

No sense of criticism Littleolive. After 7 years here, your comments are cool zephyrs of frangipani.Momento (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Titles and background of sources

Seems to me the religious background of sources like Van der Lans are just as pertinent as Geaves long-term studentship. He (VdL) is was a Catholic religious psychologist who trained as a Catholic priest. His core beliefs can be expected to be that all eastern religions and their leaders are of the devil. His petulant remarks and dire predictions need to be considered against that backdrop. Rumiton (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to the attribution from Van der Lans that he was employed as a religious psychologist at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. I will wait for Olive to return feeling better before going ahead. Rumiton (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't hurt to add this since there seems to be a history of adding this kind of context to the article. The dilemma is where to stop in an article. The important factor to consider is making sure the context informs the readers with out prejudicing them and so contributes to NPOV.(olive (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the info. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy words

Such as precociousness. Precocity gives 4 times as many Google hits and is a much more elegant word. Shall we change? Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree.Momento (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rumiton (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More clumsiness. Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. These should be melded into one sentence or into two or more proper sentences. Rumiton (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Copy edit syntax/grammar: (How about this...)(olive (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong.

Looks good. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And  Done Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lead (again)

I would like to rephrase "succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. " because a) "father" suggests a hereditary succession, and b) the important issue is "guru" not leader of the Divine Light Mission which, as the article says, was controlled by his mother and others. So I propose "At the age of eight, Rawat succeeded his guru Hans Ji Maharaj as Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. He gained etc". And introduce DLM with "By the end of 1973, western versions of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) were active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated". Momento (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

since this has become a familiy business no matter if sat pal or prem, the father should definitely stay as a first hand information. Surdas (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say both, "Rawat succeeded his guru Hans Ji Maharaj, who was also his father, as Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers."(olive (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

No problem with that either. If there are no other objections, and no one else does, I will make all these changes tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK>Momento (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed as per above.Momento (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Satguru translates to "Perfect Master." According to the Misplaced Pages article Perfect Master (Meher Baba) that was the way Meher Baba defined it. I'm not trying to quibble, but don't ever remember Satguru being defined this way with Rawat, and Satguru was translated within this NRM as "true guru." Sylviecyn (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Downton says this."Premies prostrated to them as they did to Guru Maharaj Ji even though in India and the United States he was the only one spoken of as 'satguru,' the Indian term for Perfect Master." (olive (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Sylviecyn is correct, Downton is not. "Sat" is "true and "guru" is "guru". As in "sat" "sang" = "true" "company". I objected to it when WBB inserted it but to no avail. Satguru is overwhelmingly translated as "True Master/Teacher". As per Wki "Satguru (Sanskrit: सदगुरू) does not merely mean true guru. The term is distinguished from other forms of gurus, such as musical instructors, scriptural teachers, parents, and so on. The satguru is a title given specifically only to an enlightened rishi/sant whose life's purpose is to guide initiated shishya along the spiritual path, the summation of which is the realization of the Self through realization of God, who is omnipresent. A Satguru has some special characteristics that are not found in any other types of Spiritual Guru". Wiki says "Guru (Devanagari गुरु) is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", especially in Indian religions. The Hindu guru-shishya tradition is the oral tradition or religious doctrine transmitted from teacher to student". I have corrected the translation.Momento (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If what we are doing is simply translating then it is appropriate to translate accurately and not perpetuate a mistake.(olive (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

That kind of common sense thinking comes as a bit of a shock. It has been absent from these articles in the battleground atmosphere that was created. It all seemed to be "I will allow you to put something reasonable and truthful in the article if you will let me keep in my stupid and wrong stuff from a sloppy source that supports my POV by reflecting badly on the subject." Hopefully we can now proceed sensibly and cooperatively and those days will never return. As per the above example, Sylviecyn and Momento are obviously correct. There was never any doubt that this was a wrong translation but nothing could be done about it. Rumiton (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess the answer in moving forward is for the editors here to show to the powers that be, should they ever look in, that editors here can regulate the article themselves in a stringent NPOV fashion and with civility, so no one thinks they can come in and get away with the kind of behaviour you mention. I don't mean to be patronizing or soap boxing. I deal with contentious articles quite a bit so I have a sense of what you're saying.(olive (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

The Pie incident + Affluent lifestyle

It bothers me that the Detroit pie incident and its aftermath is missing important material. The article says "In August 1973, Rawat was hit by a pie thrown by a person who was later attacked by followers. Rawat expressed shock and regret at the beating and concern for the victim's welfare. Incredibly while this material in bold is taken from a news article ""Guru wants to Help" it completely omits "When local members of the Divine Light Mission heard of this incident and became aware that Divine Light Mission personnel or devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji said to be a 15-year-old perfect master and spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission, might be involved, they notified the young Guru at his residence in Los Angeles. Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody" but the police failed to arrest them. Then, according to The New York Times "This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". Rawat's actions went far beyond simply "expressing shock and regret at the beating and concern for the victim's welfare" and that should be explained.Momento (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might suggest a new version that gives a fairer picture? Rumiton (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The DLM article contains this "While Rawat was at the Detroit City Hall in August to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, he was slapped him in the face with a shaving cream pie. Rawat responded by saying that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt, but the reporter was attacked by two men a few days later and seriously injured. When local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat who requested that the DLM conduct a full investigation. The assailants, one of them an Indian mahatma, were identified. They admitted their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The Chicago police were immediately notified. The Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings, variously claiming that they were unable to locate the assailants, or that the cost of extraditing them from Chicago to Detroit made it impractical. This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". Momento (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's quite long. If it takes this much space to provide a fair picture, perhaps a separate article might be warranted. If the incident isn't considered notable enough for that, maybe this article shouldn't concentrate on it too much either. Rumiton (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting situation. Another case of editors adding carefully selecting material that suits their POV. whilst ignoring material that doesn't suit there POV. The Smuggling incident at 142 words and Rawat's grand lifestyle at 186 words are examples where what could be said in 50 words is bloated by editors adding more words to counter someone else's words. I suggested a while ago to reduce the Smuggling to the minimum. Something like - "On arrival, Indian customs claimed a suitcase containing cash and jewelry had not been properly declared, prompting the Indian government to investigate the finances of Rawat and the DLM. Charges were never filed and the Indian government later issued an apology" which is only 41 words. If others are happy to reduce the Smuggling and Rawat's affluent lifestyle to about 50 words, I'll try to get the pie story down to 50.Momento (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Brevity is good stuff, but only if the situation can be fairly described in so few words. See how you go. Rumiton (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see Momento's draft proposal too. I'm open. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a start on Rawat's affluent lifestyle in 82 words - "Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s with some media reports saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers; his followers countered that there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. And while the press reports focused on Rawat's expensive automobiles, houses and "opulent lifestyle”; Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". I have left out - "the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence"... Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong... such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines...some of them gifts) ..."Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people 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. Momento (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear. Are you suggesting we leave out the latter parts in italics? Rumiton (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I propose ""Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s with some media reports saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers; his followers countered that there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. And while the press reports focused on Rawat's expensive automobiles, houses and "opulent lifestyle”; Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".Momento (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And I propose this for the Pie incident - "In August 1973 while Rawat was in Detroit to receive an award, he was slapped in the face with a shaving cream pie by Pat Halley, a radical journalist. Rawat said that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt, but Halley was attacked a few days later and seriously injured. When local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat who requested that DLM conduct a full investigation. Two followers were identified as the assailants and the police were immediately notified but the Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings. This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". 105 words Momento (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian Lifetime Achievement Award

This was today. We can keep an eye on Malaysian sources over the next few days. Rumiton (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They are starting to come in. Here is one from SwitchUp TV, "Malaysia's leading English language newspaper." Interestingly, the voiceover says he is the 5th person to achieve this award, after Hillary Clinton, Dr Mahathir Mahommed, Nelson Mandela and one other (?). Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The one other is Heinz Fischer, current President of Austria. I could not find out, exactly for what he got the award. It is not mentioned on his personal or official webmaterial, nor in his WP-articles in .de and .en--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Mahathir bin Mohamad was Prime Minister of Malaysia 1981 to 2003. He gained international attention last not least for his antisemitic attitude (not insinuating that that's what he got the award for! Clinton and Mandela are unsuspicious witnesses).--Rainer P. (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Giving Mahathir a Peace Award? Doesn't inspire confidence in me.Momento (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Trusting the legend on the lectern, it's an award for "branding" - whatever that means in this context. And remember, Jassir Arafat, for one, was given the Nobel Peace Price.--Rainer P. (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Asia Pacific Brands Foundation defines "branding" broadly. From their website : "Brands are not confined to just products and services but include individuals...These personalities are visionaries, statesmen and captains of industries who have made a profound impact on the environment that we live in – politically, economically and socially...The APBF takes cognizance of the role of these individuals and their contributions to society. The BrandLaureate Brand Personality Awards is initiated to honor these successful individuals whose contributions have helped the nation to grow, enhanced the well being of society and make our lives more comfortable." Prem Rawat seems to be the only one of the 5 Lifetime Achievement Awardees whose award was exclusively for peace. Rumiton (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get that far. Very impressive.Momento (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

His presentation reads: "For his contributions in championing and promoting global peace." I have asked APBF what the other 4 presentations read, as it could be relevant to the notability of this award or to how we represent it in the articles (if we do.) Rumiton (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Little fixes

• Chronology wrong in 1970-1973 section. Rawat went to England before the US. Fixed 07:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unsourced material in 1970-1973 section. "A US-based Divine Light Mission was established in Denver, Colorado by Bob Mishler.

• Unsourced material in 1974-1983 section. Meave Price is given as the source for these two sentences -"He dismissed Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM, as International President. According to one source, he "resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate" and dismissed him "when a clash of wills occurred". In fact, MP doesn't mention "Bob Mishler", doesn't mention a "co-founder of DLM" and introduces this qualifying sentence "Maharaj Ji's version of this event is recorded in a British publication Six Lane Frreway printed around March 1977 which deals with a conference held in Atlantic City in December 1976. Maharaj Ji denied that he had sacked his international director but claimed he had changed his 'service' (p. 34)" Given that Rawat is on record as disputing MP's version of events I propose removing these two sentences to leave -

"In January 1976 Rawat encouraged them to leave the ashrams and discard Indian customs and terminology. Rawat said that the organization had come between his devotees and himself. He decentralized some decision making to local premie communities, while he maintained his status as the ultimate authority over spiritual and secular matters. The staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80.

Which covers the down sizing of the Denver HQ without introducing unsourced material and MP's self contradicting material.Momento (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If that stuff is unsourced it needs to be removed. It is strange that it has never been challenged before, but I will take your word for it. Rumiton (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to Downton Page 4 and Meave Price . I can't see in reference to Mishler etc. perhaps others can.Momento (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be right. Neither can I. Rumiton (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems incredible that someone would place Mishler in the article with false sources. I'll remove it.Momento (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object that you are removing all this stuff so quickly - all with the apparent sanction of Olive who I was hoping might try and moderate properly. That's turning out not to be the case. All of this material about Bob Mishler was well-sourced and you need to look further and reinstate or revert! For example you might want to look at past discussions . This is turning out to be a massive opportunistic revision by followers of Prem Rawat who quite obviously have the intention of paring the article down and adding to it, in a selective way to promote Rawat. I have been watching and I am so appalled I cannot bring myself to enjoin any longer. I am also appalled that a supposedly sensible administrator Olive is encouraging this and not advising you slow down and go into more detail. Olive's lack of vigilance and apparent total unawareness of how sneaky you are being is now allowing the undoing of well-discussed and properly sourced material. It's a total mess. PatW (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check the sources Pat, and if there are concerns or mistakes dispute the changes. In a WP:BLP if content is not sourced it must be removed immediately, not should, but must.

I would suggest maybe slowing down a tad on making other decisions. I realize there are only two consistent editors on this page, maybe three, so this makes it easier to move ahead quickly. What you might do here is post concerns and suggested change and then wait for a period of time before making a change to allow other editors to come in and comment. Pat please do not attack the editors here. Look at the sources carefully then if you have concerns discuss them. If you, all together, can't come to a decision try a NB. Deal with the edits not the editors. This page has been peaceful, I hope it can remain this way.(olive (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

As an aside I am not an admin. and for the record I am not gong to police this article even if I could or should. You have to deal with one edit at a time, with one change, not with what you or any editors feels are the motivations of the editor. I realize this article has a long history of contention, but I know you can't fix what's wrong by dealing with the editors. Pat one thing you may want to think about is that a fair amount of control on this article was maintained by one editor. He did a lot for Misplaced Pages, but also was not only topic banned, but banned from all NRMs with an indef ban from Misplaced Pages as a whole in a close to unanimous arbcom vote. Is it possible he made some mistakes here? The only way you can correct any problems with this article is to actively engage in editing and discussing it one point at a time. If each edit is discussed and agreement is reached on it, then the next and the next, you should end up with a neutral article. That can't happen if editors refuse to engage. I have way too much to deal with to take on another contentious article. I came here because I saw civility problems which always bother me. The onus is on the editors here to tackle this one step at a time.(olive (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Momento's change seems fine to me. This is pretty neutral material, and what Momento seems to be doing is making sure that while saying almost the same thing the content is directly sourced with out creating OR as was the case before. If this isn't accurate Momento has asked for input, which suggests he will amend his edits. (olive (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Poor grammar

Just noticed that According to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison". doesn't really make sense; either the quote marks or the "according to" are redundant. Best change might be to, Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, stated that "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison". Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No objections? OK. Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for addition

Perhaps there should be a new section for awards.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - On September 28, 2012, at a forum called “7 Billion Reasons for Peace,” Prem Rawat was awarded the "Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Brand Laureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award" —their highest and most prestigious award. Reserved for statesmen and illustrious individuals whose actions and work have positively impacted the lives of people and the world at large, there have been only four other recipients: Nelson Mandela, Hillary Clinton, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad (Prime Minister of Malaysia 1981-2003), and Heinz Fischer (President of Austria). Source: The Prem Rawat Foundation. http://www.tprf.org/en/news-and-features/message-of-peace-news/497-prem-rawat-receives-lifetime-achievement-award-in-malaysia. I hope no one will suggest this might have been faked by premies in a movie studio. :-) Regards --PremieLover (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with past behaviors but we are trying to get rid of sarcasm from these discussions, as per this. Please comply. Rumiton (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a separate awards section, seems to me it would be too promotional. Perhaps, like criticism, accolades should be spread within the article. Also I am sure you are aware that TPRF, as a primary source, is not acceptable for information that might be seen as "unduly self-serving." Rumiton (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This does seem to be a notable award. Perhaps it could go in the 1983-2000s section. How about: In September, 2012, in Malaysia, Prem Rawat was awarded the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, "for his contributions in championing and promoting global peace."

The silence around here is becoming a little eery. Over the last 30 days, this talk page has been looked at by an average of 73 people per day, quite a large pool of interested people. It can only be assumed that no one has a strong enough objection to the above proposed changes to say anything. Working on that assumption, I shall go ahead and add this new information. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the sarcasm. All world personalities (singers, actors, etc.) have an Award section. I see no reason why Prem Rawat cannot have one when, now or in the future, there are enough awards to justify it. But I support the inclusion anywhere anyway. It is not a minor award, just see the few other people who got it. 73 persons per day seems to be a success, whether they are the same or different persons, it means this intellectual tennis has fans. I hope not all humouristic comments will be considered sarcasm :-)PremieLover (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

These articles are under probation because of past incivility and bad editing practices. Please continue to participate, but with great care not to stir everything up again. No one gains when that happens and no one finds it funny. With sobriety and restraint on both sides we might and up with an article that all can live with. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is anger there is no humour, if there is humour there is no anger--PremieLover (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't really agree with that. What one person perceives as a harmless joke can make another person feel they are being taunted and jeered at. It depends on the level of frustration they are feeling at the time. I have been on both sides of this divide myself. Rumiton (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1. SwitchUp TV ]

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review