Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Divinity

Below an excerpt from an interview with Mishler (after his split from Rawat), who talks about the meaning of this Divinity and how Rawat presented himself. I think it may be useful for editors here to know, just for perspective.

Bob: When he first arrived, his message was that he knew the truth and that the truth was within each and every individual. He sometimes used to talk about that truth, whether you called it God or something else, as the perfect energy within each individual. He said that this was something he could reveal to everyone. That, in fact, was his purpose. He was called a perfect master because he had mastered something that was perfect; presumably this perfect energy inside us which was responsible for life. In revealing that to other people, he was revealing the only thing which could claim to be perfection, the primordial energy of the universe.

He would essentially ask people to come to him and ask for this knowledge, which would be freely given. The only thing that was required was the sincerity on the part of the individual asking. If you would ask sincerely, not just because you wanted to do it out of curiosity, but because you really wanted to know the truth about life, then he would have this knowledge revealed to you. Actually, he never really did any of the initiating himself; there was always one of his disciples to do that. These disciples at that time were called Mahatmas. In the beginning years, they were all Indians as well.

He billed himself as a humble servant of God who was essentially in charge with the responsibility of revealing this knowledge to people by his father who was his guru. At the same time, although there were some people who would say, well, he has to be a god himself in order to be able to reveal God, he would always deny this. He would say : "I make no claims of this sort at all. What I am revealing - it is not even as if I am giving you something - is something that is there inside you. It is there inside everyone. By recognising it, by having it revealed to you and then by meditating on it, you can attain the peace that comes through knowing the truth. Once you have found peace within yourself, this is the way towards ultimate world peace".

As you note, this is very far removed from the Christian concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Still working on that draft version ... it is quite difficult, because it is entwined with so many aspects of his biography. Jayen466 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was puzzled for some time about the U-turn in 1976. Early 1976 saw an incipient Westernization, with ashram closures, while in late 1976, this policy was reversed, with Rawat reappearing in his Krishna costume and reopening the Ashrams. It seems that this was the point where Rawat, now 18, established his own authority, overriding Mishler, who was responsible for the previous policy. (Some of Nik's academic sources say as much.) Mishler quit shortly after. My current "building site" is here (it is nowhere near the shape it should be yet). Jayen466 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I think it is all difficult. Prem Rawat has always been an extraordinary person and a pragmatic one. He has been set (by his father) the goal of allowing as many people as possible internationally to come and receive Knowledge, and his methods are adaptable, they "turn on a dime" so to speak. Reading Hummel last night I was struck by the way Hummel appeared to be trying to discern some underlying and fixed plan behind the speech Prem Rawat gave at Delhi Gate (the "Peace Bomb.") As a native German speaker you may point out my error, but some of the expressions Hummel used would seem more appropriate applied to a military strategist. (Flucht nach vorn "move forward when under threat" usw). And he is writing about a 12 year-old boy. Nobody has ever known how to deal with him. Good luck to all of us. Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it doesn't help when different scholars claim to see diametrically opposite developments happening over the same time frame.

1. Downton writes, In 1971, premies had their commitments strengthened by surrender, with its underlying mechanisms of identification and conformity. By 1976, the Mission's leadership was apparently discouraging blind surrender. Where, in 1971, premies needed only to conform and obey their "Lord," by 1976 they were being asked to take responsibility to interpret, initiate, and act. ... As surrender and devotion were discarded, reliance shifted to the tangible benefits of practicing the Knowledge, of living within the premie community, and of participating more fully within the local areas. So according to him, in 1971 surrender was important, and by 1976, it was Knowledge.
2. Now here come van der Lans and Derks, asserting in the context of initiation that "Before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for "Knowledge" (in the sense Divine Light Mission uses this term); after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour in order to become a member." God help us indeed. Jayen466 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Taking the bull by the horns" is another translation. :-) Since we are doing words, there is more on the origin and usage of "lede" here. Jayen466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe the ashrams were reopened in 1976. Surely it was at least a couple of years later? Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Krishna appearance seems to have been on 20 December 1976, and "Signs of rededication both to Guru Maharaj Ji and the inner guru became quite apparent. Most of the premies who left the ashrams in the summer of 1976 began to return in 1977, when more than 600 signed up to enter the ashrams in just a few months' time." (Downton). Jayen466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Collier book 'Soul Rush" yet? It is most informative and has been quoted from many times here

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface Of course you can also get this book out of the library.

She says this: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.

Also this from Foss and Larkin 1978: 'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: "I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.)

Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' - relevant as Prem Rawat's teachings directly derived from his fathers :

My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.
Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.
If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry.
One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother.
The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee.
One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '

Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge." (from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood. (from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful.....
(from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.) Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible. (extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972. Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:) PatW (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You left out an important part of the equation, PatW. Rawat explained during his first talks in the west that God was pure energy. In 1971 in Canada - "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". In 1971 in England - "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". South Africa in 1972 -"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose". And USA in 1972 " I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors". This is the basis of Rawat's teachings. Ignore this and it will never add up.Momento (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I left it out intentionally Momento as I knew you would be very quick to supply the 'I am not God' quotes.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Call me simple minded, but to me it looks like this all adds up to "Prem Rawat has made conflicting statements about whether he is divine." And we should craft something (as Jayen is doing) that gives a fair range of the conflicting statements. Msalt (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not in the least simple-minded. I had every faith that you would discern the truth of the matter as indeed anyone with the slightest approximation of intelligence would, reading a good cross section of materials and reports from the times.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is there conflict? God is energy, God created everything, everything is a manifestation of God therefore everything is "from or of God", God is in every human being, Knowledge allows you to know God within, the more you practice Knowledge the more God you experience, all humans are divine, the Guru is more divine because the Guru dedicates his life to serve God. According to the dictionary "divine" means "of or from God". Rawat has always been absolutely clear, we are all "divine".Momento (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle of quotes again? The battle of quotes?

People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.

— Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971

People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose.

— Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972

Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?
Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God.

— Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972

Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?

Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world.
Reporter: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?

Maharaj Ji: Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?

— Rolling Stone. The Seventies : A Tumultuous Decade Reconsidered. Boston: Little, Brown. pp. p.104. ISBN 0-316-81547-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

There are numerous archives in which this was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So what Jossi? We're discussing it again because you did not win your past arguments. This case is BY NO MEANS SHUT like you flatter yourself it is. Get used to the fact that no-one in the real world is gonna lie down and drop arguments because you bark at them to do so for your own self-important reasons. You live on a planet inhabited by others with different opinions than your own! If that has escaped your attention then you are surely in for a shock. Jossi, there is no battle of quotes. Do you realise how empty your argument appears in the face of all these quotes? The truth is plain obvious Prem Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth about his divinity. NB you premies are the only ones making the patently ridiculous suggestion (in the face of the evidence) that he didn't. Even I , as a confessed critic, willingly acknowledge he said he wasn't God or Divine. But your intelligence bizarrely doesn't seem to stretch to the capacity of understanding how he might have ALSO said he was God and divine. That makes you simple-minded NOT Msalt whose brain is obviously working perfectly well.PatW (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? I want that the general should sign some papers. I need not go to his office when he is sitting in my home. Is it necessary to go in his office when his is sitting in my home? When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there?"

Source:Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

Andries (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... which is consistent with Guru#Guru_and_God .... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God, at least in the Hindu/Guru context? That is not something that falls under common knowledge, and if you are going to separate his meaning into a different context, then at least, that context should be referenced. Maelefique (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already contains wording about this apparent contradiction, as sourced to scholars that studied the subject. In the quote above the young Prem Rawat does not say "I am greater than God", he is paraphrasing Kabir and Brahmananda. Big difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... and an often used remark ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God: You can't say that without explaining the background Jossi has just indicated. Otherwise, someone who has grown up in a Christian context has no chance of not misunderstanding what is meant; they will always see it as the ultimate hubris. Again, that is something where there is usually a sharp divide between scholars, who understand this background, and journalists, who don't. Jayen466 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, Jayen466, and it's an important one. However, I think it's one-sided and harsh to say that someone who has grown up in a Christian context must misunderstand this. We could just as easily say that it's impossible for a teacher from an Indian upbringing to understand what claims he was making as a religious leader in America. If we scale it back a bit and acknowledge that there is a cultural gap that is at least difficult for any of us to cross, we are beginning to make process. Humility is essential on both sides.

This is a crucial point because the main story of Rawat (in my opinion) is the story of Indian thought transplanted to America, and the effect that each had on the other. Both the appeal and criticism of Rawat's teaching can only be understood in that context. Rawat left India in part because his mother and others did not like the ways he became more American; his legal emancipation, move to America, marriage and citizenship were all potent symbol of his break with his homeland. The exotic nature of his teaching attracted some and repelled others, and the result led him to westernize, as we all agree.

So this controversy is very important, and it is crucial that we capture both sides, including the fact that many Americans (both devoteess and those who disliked him) understood him to be claiming divinity in a Western, Jesus-like manner, and that he has made statements that can be interpreted both ways. The best evidence from our sources seems to indicate that as a young man who must have been awed by the intensity of the response, he flirted a bit with letting Westerners take him to be a Western-type god, when they misunderstood for cultural reasons, then quickly realized the dangers involved and pulled back. I hope that we can find careful wording that captures the nuance of this, without going to immediate black and white judgements or defensive reactions against them by Rawat devotees.Msalt (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How we do this without engaging in original research, Msalt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Through good writing that captures the nuance of our sources and the complexity of the picture that they collectively create, rather than harnessing them to support our viewpoints and preconceptions. Letting it be what it is, and working hard to capture that ITness. Summarizing complex events so that they form a cohesive whole without synthesizing a new argument is the mystical goal of Wikipedia; there's no reductive formula for doing it, but you know it when you see it. Otherwise, we're just quoting other encylopedias, which unfortunately this article does far too often. Msalt (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We can and should state this without this without background information because as far as I know the sources did not mention the background information nor did Rawat himself gave this background information. Andries (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. We should throw away editorial judgment, make the article to be misleading, just to push a certain POV. Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, omitting the background as per the sources, is good editorial judgmenent, because Rawat himself is to blame for this. He never said something like, do not take so seriously what I say about myself because I am only quoting Kabir. If the article is misleading then it is only because Rawat's statements were misleading. Andries (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Andries.... Are we using this article to condemn the subject of the article? If that is your intention, please refresh your memory ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

How hypocritical of you Jossi to accuse Andries of trying to condemn the subject of the article when you have spent the most of the last few years of your life trying to apologise for the subject of the article here. Andries 'riposte to you was utterly valid since Rawat most definitely NEVER said anything to suggest that people should not take him seriously because he was 'quoting Kabir' or such absolute nonsense that your suggest. On the contrary he knew exactly how seriously people would take him and he played it to the hilt and apparently believed it himself. The innocence that others are trying with the best intentions to see simply was not there. Prem Rawat has never definitively told followers to stop worshipping him and this will become apparent to those who continue their investigations. I guarantee it. In fact I would stake my life on it.PatW (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I am only insisting that the sources are followed without giving background information that neither Rawat nor the sources gave. In other words what I am following WP:NOT#SOAP, so I do not understand your request that I refresh my memory in this respect. Andries (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this. Here's a good example- "Would you please go through the whole list of Hindu concepts expressed in and taught in your own earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those of your family, your father and your mahatmas, and specifically separate those which you no longer hold any stock in from those you do? Would you please explain when and how you came to realize that these above-mentioned concepts were untrue?".....(From http://ex-premie.org/questions/y_revise_past.htm )

PatW (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to continue allowing the misuse of these pages for soapboxing?" How many times needs PatW be warned about the misuse of talk page discussions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Watts

"The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance" The source provided does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat. I checked Watts writings and found nothing related. Please be careful in using sources that describe other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is a long article in the New York Times describing Rawat in great detail. The relevant passage quotes Bal Bhagwan Ji as saying he is amazed by Rawat's succes in America. Then it goes on: "The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, 'The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.' "

On what do you base your statement that the source does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat? It seems very clear to me that it does, as the comment about fudge sundaes and the word "this" in connection to doctrine make clear. Msalt (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear Jossi may be correct. If Watts (who, btw, died in 1973) said this about Rawat, he probably meant it as praise; i.e. the emphasis would have been on "sacred", judging from my knowledge of Watts' oeuvre. He was rather anti-intellectual himself. Will dig into this a little. Jayen466 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a WP:REDFLAG I remember reading that Watts actually put some money up to help bring the young Prem Rawat to the US in 1971, and was quite supportive. I will dig into this as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here a related quote from Watts: Tao means basically "way", and so "course"; the course of nature. Lao-tzu said the way of the functioning of the tao is "so of itself"; that is to say it is spontaneous. Watch again what is going on. If you approach it with this wise ignorance, you will see that you are witnessing a happening. In other words, in this primal way of looking at things there is no difference between what you do, on the one hand, and what happens to you on the other. It is all the same process. Just as your thought happens, the car happens outside, and so the clouds and the stars. When a Westerner hears that he thinks this is some sort of fatalism or determinism, but that is because he still preserves in the back of his mind two illusions. One is that what is happening is happening to him, and therefore he is the victim of circumstances. But when you are in primal ignorance there is no you different from what is happening, and therefore it is not happening to you. It is just happening. So is "you", or what you call you, or what you will later call you. It is part of the happening, and you are part of the universe, although strictly speaking the universe has no parts. We only call certain features of the universe parts. However you can't disconnect them from the rest without causing them to be not only non-existent, but to never to have existed at all. [1] To Watts, ignorance is a positive value; the NYT would have used his dictum sarcastically here, seeing a parallel. Jayen466 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Some journalists will do anything to have a "story" and sometime their ignorance of a subject pun intended) and their bias ( shows. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove it until and unless we can find the original reference, so to understand the context. Msalt (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Bal Bhagwan Ji Whaaat? I have that article and the cite is not made by that person, but by the journalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A space was left in the Astrodome parking lot in case any flying saucers wished to land. The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.. Journalism at its best? In any case, that cite cannot be attributed to Bal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The part about BBJ immediately precedes the flying saucer stuff, about which he is quoted. I left the UFOs out because it's a tangent that's inflammatory. Right before the UFOs, it's the paragraph starting with "The successful transpant of an Eastern guru movement...." BBJ says "I'm amazed... it's mighty.." I'm surprised you didn't see that. Did you think I was quoting BBJ quoting Watts? Not at all. I mentioned it only because you seemed to be implying that the Watts quote wasn't describing Prem Rawat.Msalt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about your OR Francis that the quote "applied to the intellectual content of Rawat's doctrine". Please self-revert.Momento (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR: The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as [...]. As [...] Alan Watts [...] said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance." - but I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too, if that's what you prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because Watts uses the word "doctrine" and the reporter uses the word "doctrine" doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. That's your OR. Momento (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, that is an irrelevant argument. The reporter used a Watts quote to say something about Rawat's doctrine. Whether or not the reporter understood Watts is irrelevant. He meant to say something about Rawat. And in the article it is all attributed to NYT: the ideas the NYT has about Rawat's doctrine, and how the NYT uses a Watts quote to explain these ideas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis still has it wrong. That is an extrapolation that is not warranted by what the source says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an extrapolation, I made it less edgy, but if you like & as said, I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too. The colorful language using a simile of sorts is not something to be used against the NYT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an extrapolation, and the "colorful" language is just an example of poor reporting, NYT, or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we're back at trying to overrule generally acceptable reliable sources, because you don't like their content. No, not how Wikipedia's WP:V works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about like or dislike. It is about sound editorial judgment, which is always needed. Otherwise these policies mean nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "It is not about like or dislike" - if you say so. Re. "It is about sound editorial judgment" - true. The sound editorial judgement is required to not avoid the sharper criticism in order to get a distorted picture. BLP's should be written conservatively, this means also not avoiding criticism that is over a quarter of a century old, i.e. not giving a modern version that re-interprets conservative sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No guys, Alan Watts paid for Prem Rawat's ticket coming over to the US (google for "Alan Watts" "Maharaj Ji". He was not being critical of Rawat. The NYT is being critical of both Watts and Rawat here. Let's just take it out again. Jayen466 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

only the fudge sundaes simile then? Works for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Nicholas Cusanus that used first the term "sacred ignorance" Sacra autem ignorantia me instruit hoc, quod intellectui nihil videtur, esse maximum incomprehensibile Which roughly translates to "Only through sacred ignorance we can recognized that which appears nothing to the intellect to be the incomprehensible maximum". Clearly not a pejorative as misused by the journalist, but the contrary. I am still looking for Watts original quote to see in which context did he use it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about, but nil novi sub sole I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

;-) Jayen466 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipse dixit  :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

est pergamentum Jossius Minimus :-( PatW (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit], Francis, is WP:POINT and disruptive. Not being able to revert to your preferred version, all you do is bypass 1RR with that edit? Ridiculous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't prefer the version including Watts,

1. It might contain criticism of Watts (as pointed out by Jayen), which is hardly appropriate in a BLP on Rawat;
2. It amounts to complex sentences: a source says that a source says (and the like).
3. The simile used by the NYT enhances readability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis writes - I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about......Exactly, Francis. And of course Visa Versa. Where did this dumb suggestion that Rawat himself was speaking some sort of impenetrable mystical eastern language come from? Why Jossi and his ever-spinnning pals of course! Listen, I was there before Jossi and his mates even heard of Prem Rawat and I can tell you I was a fan of Eastern Mystics and religion since age 15 too - was quite widely read on Hinduism and Ramakrishna etc- and there's no doubt that Rawat too was well aquainted with Christian thought. For a start he went to Catholic School in Dehradun in India for goodness sake! This is all abject nonsense just to try and pretend that Indian 'God' is somehow a totally different thing to the Western one and Rawat was (as usual) completely misunderstood by dumb western followers who are entirely to blame for misrepresenting him. In name(s) maybe Indians have a different God. In nature I don't think so. One of the things that attracted me to Eastern religions, meditation and then Rawat was that it offered essentially a way to directly experience the Light, the God within. That was NOT some Hindu God or a Christian God but plain simple GOD one for all. And that understanding was shared by most western followers I can assure you.PatW (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the comment about fudge sundae. Three reasons. First, it is written in the present tense, implying that something from the 1970s still exists today. Second, the point about sources in Wikipedia is that they have to be expert, or in some way trained to make a judgment. WP: Sources says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There are no facts here, just opinions. Third, the article repeats the view in the previous sentence, that P. Rawat's talks were banal. We should not be returning to a situation where quotes are added to quotes, with the greatest number determining the winner. Armeisen (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article accurately reflect the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times? Also at the time the heathen masses were of course far more interested in his predilection for certain ice-creams than his spiritual message. So why not tell the story? Would you be opposed to quoting a favourable New York Times comment about Prem Rawat for the same reasons? eg. if it were 'an opinion'?PatW (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you a question? If his talks were so banal, why did you fall for it? Or is it that the only way to resolve your disaffection is to negate your own past? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Firstly I was primarily interested in receiving the knowledge and finding out for myself so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Secondly I was 17 and naive. Thirdly. I have never negated my past here or anywhere else. Quite the opposite in fact- resolution comes from accurately recalling and understanding the past which is why I object to revisionism.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You write such broad generalisations, Pat, that it is almost impossible to know where to start. You state the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times. First, there was no fact. Second, who were the great unwashed? I'm not sure whether they were P. Rawat's followers (who, it is often alleged, were hippies) or others. If the great unwashed perceived it as banal, then why did they follow him? From what Janice says, that must include you. I'm not sure that the so-called heathen masses were indeed interested in his eating ice-cream. I'm not sure they had any interest at all, then, and certainly not now. The story then, about ice-creams, may have been what attracted you at the time, Pat, but I don't think you can even pretend to align yourself with the general public.

By the way, Pat, I think I was there before Jossi. Still here, still enjoying. Armeisen (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'great unwashed and heathen masses' I meant the general public (as seen condescendingly by the enlightened few). I thought that was clear. I received Knowledge in 1974 aged 17. My comments about the NYT article are objective. I think that article predates my involvement. Not sure why I would not have been a member of the general public.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more Kent. He may have found Rawat's talk banal but his "companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, I consider Francis Schonken's "fudge sundae" edit deliberately "disruptive".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME OUT! (and undent.) This discussion is getting way overheated. Look, this started because Momento challenged the sources for the long-standing (and I don't think really debatable) statement that some people found Rawat's teaching as simplistic. We can quibble about sources, but does anyone serious dispute that such controversy existed? I don't think so.

So then I tried, in all good faith, to remedy the problem by adding a couple of English sources. (Momento objected to the sources being Dutch.) One of my additions stands. The other I didn't think through, for a variety of reasons -- Francis pointed out my indirect citation, Jayen and Jossi noted that I probably misunderstood Watts' very point (which is embarrassing, since I'm a fan of Watts), etc. I self-reverted.

Francis noticed in one of my explanations that the NYT reporter had said the same thing (simplistic). So s/he put it back in. No disruption, no need for emotion. Legitimate argument whether a New York Times reporter is qualified to say that, sure. But let's all relax a little bit here. (By the way, it was a feature in the Sunday NYT magazine, and they often have writers with real expertise on those, so the qualifications should be examined in context, as always.) Let's just find better sources and move on. OK? Friends again? Good! Msalt (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To keep us on track toward improving the article, I added the NYT article as a source for the intellectual criticism of Rawat (without quoting it on fudge sundaes or anything), added the word "simplistic" to "lacking intellectual substance" and broadened it from "scholars" to a more general survey of criticism, which is more encyclopedic. Msalt (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx, Msalt, works for me.

Just wanted to add a broader comment, while ideas like "this is an opinion (by the NYT), thus shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" have come up. I recommend a reading of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:ASF, which is one of its sections. In fact I'm going to give a rather large quote from that policy section here: I enjoyed re-reading it, and hope you all do too (just highlighting the word "opinion" a few times):

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There [...] are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. [...] That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. (...) A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.

Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

[...]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I quite agree with this. But then come the disputes that arise when editors seek to exclude opinion because they deem it to be held by 'an insignificant minority'. (Not sure this is a particular contention over the NYT thing but it is a very commonly used reason for excluding opinion here.) I'd be interested to to know your understanding of that. PatW (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the way Msalt has now incorporated the NYT criticism. On the whole, I think it is more encyclopedic and NPOV to say that someone was dismissed or ridiculed, rather than – gleefully – repeating the dismissive or derisive statement verbatim, unless it has special notability. Jayen466 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Omitting the details of the criticism and ridiculing is not informative and hence not encyclopedic. At least the reader should be able to click on the mouse to see in the references the detailed criticisms. Andries (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is helpful if the interested reader can see the original quote, and have no objection to anyone adding the quote in the ref citation, but I still think it is unencyclopedic to have references to Rawat's being "fat" or "liking sundaes" in the body of the article. Can we agree to restrict that kind of thing to the ref quotes? Jayen466 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a guru who has a penchant for ice cream is extremely unusual and hence related to Rawat's notability. Andries (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream is a bit reductive, but clearly Rawat's lifestyle is unusual and notable for a spiritual leader from the Vedantic tradition. (Osho is another.) Nonetheless, we need to be careful to avoid some of these bits of color. They make for good and interesting writing but can easily introduce elements of judgement that don't belong. We can't tolerate that as much as newspapers, magazines and books can, but there is also a risk of missing key points. I think that including them in refs is an excellent compromise. Msalt (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure his lifestyle is unusual at all. Can you name any well-known guru, or religious leader of any denomination, who lives in poverty and discomfort? Jayen466 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree about the idea to provide the quotes in the ref. Jayen466 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to know that the current and previous popes both like(d) ice cream? [2] I think gurus these days eat pretty much the same as everyone else. Jayen466 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. But has there ever been a guru who flies his own 707 when he's 23 years old? A guru who at 16 marries a 24 year old American? A guru who gives up being a guru?Momento (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah! woah! There is a ridiculous amount of distance between PR's lifestyle and the idea of "living in poverty and discomfort". That question is ridiculous on its own merits. An honest question might be more along the lines of whether or not PR's lifestyle is more extravagant than his "peers" (for lack of a better word). Wow, nice way to try and steer an argument into the absurd... BTW, have another flying guru while we're at it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6276333.stm and a guru that gives up being a guru... http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/NewAge/guru_retires.html what is the point of your arguments people?! Or is it merely, as I suspect, engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum to distract from the real issue?

This kind of behaviour from Jossi is not funny either. How can we stop this?

I just noticed that Jossi has performed his latest favorite little conjuring trick to remove things he doesn't like from this discussion. (See thread about three up from this entitled 'Divinity' where my text has been replaced with some horrible little brown box saying "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.") Can somebody help me out here? I really have had enough of this biased administrator stifling discussion with his paranoid beliefs about soapboxing. I came here not to soapbox but to raise objection to, draw attention to, and sensibly discuss all the inaccuracies that were obviously being presented here. Who the hell does Jossi think I'm 'soapboxing' to? Aren't we allowed to bring such things to the table for editors here to discuss? Above, I sought to draw attention to the fact that Rawat has not made any attempts to clarify which Hindu beliefs he no longer espouses as was patently germane to the thread/article. Jossi has this crazed fear about any thing hosted by that ex-premie.org website. Why? Can somebody please enlighten me as to why Wikipedia allows someone with such proven COI to wield authority here (of all places) like this? How can I undo his blasted magic trick to make things disappear like that?PatW (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case nobody saw what I wrote here it is again. Please read and tell me why this is 'soapboxing' or not permitted??-

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story. I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this. Here's a good example- "Would you please go through the whole list of Hindu concepts expressed in and taught in your own earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those of your family, your father and your mahatmas, and specifically separate those which you no longer hold any stock in from those you do? Would you please explain when and how you came to realize that these above-mentioned concepts were untrue?".....(From http://ex-premie.org/questions/y_revise_past.htm )

PatW (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views. That is not only not funny, but disruptive. You have received multiple warnings from different editors, and you are not listening: User_talk:PatW#No personal attacks - 2nd warning, User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3, User_talk:PatW#Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks. Any further disruption will be reported at WP:AN/I as per probation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the discussion Jossi last archived included any personal attacks. Please don't archive any more threads - we have a bot for that. If we need to deal with talk page disruption it'd be better to have an uninvolved admin do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The concern is not about NPA only, Will. It is about soapboxing and endless stream of comments and personal opinions, per WP:NOT#FORUM, which is BTW, policy. As I said above, any further such disruptions will be reported at WP:AN/I to be evaluated by uninvolved admins. Pat: Consider this the last warning ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warn away Jossi. What I will consider is that your warnings are inappropriate and a corruption of honest values and freedom of speech. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this.PatW (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi writes:You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views.

Who says I am asserting my views any more than you or anyone else? As a matter of fact I was presenting a perfectly innocent argument and pointing to other peoples expressed views that support my argument. All of which was quite appropriate to the articles discussion page. PatW (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into this. As it stands, I can count several AGF/civility violations, and repeated misuse of your user talk page and this article's talk page as a soap box. By asking for a block is a weak attempt to actually have Jossi block you out of spite -- which won't happen because I have much more faith and respect into Jossi not to do that -- hence why there is an open ANI case that you've been made aware of. As an uninvolved administrator, I am politely asking you to refrain from this line of unconstructive discourse, and to stop using various pages as a soapbox -- and to stop forum shopping for replies. seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to be polite but let me be clear about this. Do you really think that I am here to get personal attention or out of a more conscientious desire to draw to attention to counter-arguments to various edit proposals I consider important? I reject the appellation of 'attention whore' or whatever you said on that ANI page because I consider myself to be defending righteous public-spirited arguments in the face of quite considerable POV pushing here. Like I said which maybe I shouldn't have..I think that some of what has been asserted here under Jossi's watch amounts to lies. Sorry but that's my blunt perception and I partly blamed Jossi and of course our friend here Momento. I invited Jossi to 'bring on' uninvolved editors here not out of 'cockiness' but out of a sense of urgent necessity. I observe that actually there is some merit in pushing the boundaries here to get more neutral voices involved. If it wasn't for such historic rude opposition I don't think many neutral editors would have felt the need to check out this article. In short Jossi's negative publicity - however unwelcome- has done heaps of good for this article by drawing neutral attention and focussing the discussions more dispassionately and intelligently. Believe me, I would be delighted to get back to more civil tone. BTW What exactly is 'soapboxing' about referring to those things I just did? In short if I knew what definitively what 'soapboxing' was I might be able to stop doing it. And yes, I welcome your invitation for me to refrain from unconstructive discourse. PatW (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you seem to be saying you will not "get back to a more civil tone" until this article conforms to your idea of an "intelligent and dispassionate" discussion. Given the intense discussions that have taken place here, and the rigorous application to the discussion of rules and guidelines intended to achieve exactly those qualities, this may be not a good direction for you to be going in. I would take warnings from uninvolved admins very seriously. See WP:SOAP. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm prepared to moderate my tone - I said as much. All I was doing was questioning why what I said amounts to soapboxing. I really still don't understand this. [[3]]I am not altogether impressed at the AN/I. Jossi took words which I believe I'd deleted straightaway (thinking the better of it) and included that as evidence of my incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong about this please but that is my vague recollection. How fair is that? Secondly my polite comments re-questioning Jossi's fairness over the above incident were immediately removed from Jimi Wales' page altogether. [[4]]I think that is outrageous in this day and age. Thirdly only one of the editors in that jury actually looked in here to see the context of my argument. [[5]]The others just rushed to judgement in what I thought a rather uncivilised free for all, except Will. I am in fact so distinctly depressed by the unfair trial atmosphere here that I am now seriously considering withdrawing altogether of my own free will. PatW (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Have you been talking about me on Jimmy Wales' page without telling me? That would be most uncivil. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. I thought I was talking to Jossi. Have re-worded.PatW (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I still feel like emphasising that getting this article to be fair and actually informative about the subject is going to take a lot of flexible thinking from all. We are not there yet. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the thread disappearing from Wales' Talk Page it just is right down the bottom.PatW (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Taxonomy

EV is (apparently appropriately) listed on List of groups referred to as cults. DLM certainly should be on that list, but has been deleted, inappropriately, IMHO, even though it no longer exists. There should be some further categorization of these groups, however. The term is used a bit too much to imply guilt by (free) association in the minds of any given group of cult critics. Maharaj Ji does not appear to be a Charles Manson or a David Miscavige, although I am not watching him very closely. I ignored him completely for around ten years, until I discovered these Wikipedia articles.

The Love Family and The Manson Family are/were LSD cults. LSD has a hypnotic effect, and people ... participating in the "sacrament" of LSD ... in the presence of Paul Erdman (a/k/a "Love Israel") learned that he was "greater than or equal to God," and that they had to give him all of their money. In the Manson Family, Manson was held as the returned Jesus. Well, we all know where that went. It was very difficult to deprogram someone out of the Love Family if they had been through the LSD "sacrament." Leslie Van Houten may have been effectively deprogrammed by other prisoners, but they are never, ever, ever going to let her out of prison, so it doesn't really matter.

DLM and the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation, contrariwise, could be referred to as "concentration" cults. In the Alamo cult, individuals were persuaded to think the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" during all waking hours. They were then shown selected Bible verses to convince them that if they stopped thinking this phrase, God would zap them into homosexuals who could not go to heaven. The unwitting self-hypnotic effect of the "meditation" left them in fear of leaving the cult property. Recruits were selected for proselytization based upon their apparent recent drug use. Full members lived in the commune and engaged in back-breaking physical labor, for which they never received a paycheck. Oh, yeah. They also had to turn over all of their money and possessions. Almost forgot that.

The (1973) DLM version was, essentially the same -- 24/7 concentration on your own breathing, pressure to live in an ashram (or, more frequently, a "premie house"), and subsequent indoctrination into the "non-beliefs." The first of these was the belief that you didn't have beliefs (or concepts or dogma), but knew things based upon your own experience. The next was that there was something wrong, demonic or Satanic about the "mind," which was not defined, based upon its resistance to this kind of "meditation." The next was that the guru was greater than or equal to God, which you believed, but also believed that you knew. In 1973, the organization was promoting the idea that the Millennium '73 event was, essentially, the Second Coming, that "Sache dabar ki jai" referred to the Guru and his Holy Family as "the Holy High Court of God," and that the mother and three brothers were "the four angels referred to in the Book of Revelation." That whole cluster of un-beliefs was attributed to Bal Bhagwan Ji in a legendary conversation with some guy called "Tiny." Anyway, by November, I, and everyone I knew, expected a flying saucer to remove the Astrodome from the planet, with all of us inside. Rennie Davis predicted 144000 of us. It was fairly easy to deprogram someone out of the Alamo cult or DLM. You only had to convince them to stop "Praising the Lord" or "meditating," and enough of their thinking ability was restored to see that they had been deceived and that believing in flying saucers and all that was a little bit off. Oh -- and the third page of the Ashram Application asked a lot of questions about things like trust funds and potential inheritances. One premie house I was living in became an "applicant ashram," and with the requirements for a positive cash flow from the house to DLM, everyone would have needed a pretty good-paying job to continue to live there. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman point out that the DLM mind control was particularly effective, and that they hadn't met former premies who had not been "appropriately deprogrammed." They didn't wait long enough. If you visit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org, you will find that very few of us were deprogrammed, and that the others took 20-25-30 years to think their way out of the trap, usually after reading the histories of other ex-premies online.

Now, I'm seeing that Goom Rodgie has apparently modified his earlier "agya" from "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name" to practicing the four techniques for a minimum of one hour a day. The "Music" as taught, unbalances the body's electrical field and impedes thinking. The "Word," as taught in the past (24/7), serves as a more severe mind control technique, similar to the "Jesus" mantram in the Alamo cult. The "Light" (as taught in 1973) has the potential to physically damage the eyes, but probably has some beneficial potential if practiced in a different manner. The "snot" technique seems to be harmless, unless you get your tongue caught in your sinuses somehow. I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but there is a Radha Soami image online (MRI, I believe), showing someone with his tongue all the way up there, which looks like it could result in suffocation. And, of course, there are other breath meditations, including one of the Vipasana techniques, which rely upon "bare attention" rather than forced concentration, and which are not normally practiced 24/7, even in a monastic environment. So "The Knowledge" could be modified into something harmless and possibly beneficial, but I see no evidence of that occurring as yet. . If there is no ongoing secret EV teaching to keep "meditating" 24/7 (and, as an outsider, now, I would have no way of evaluating that), then EV is no longer the same kind of cult DLM was. In fact, using the taxonomy of the 2nd edition of "Snapping," it would appear to be a "sect," now -- an unorthodox religious group with a pyramidal structure, which would have the potential of becoming a cult if the leader (or the group) became paranoid enough or if the group was attacked by outside society. . A lot of different things are lumped together under the rubric of "meditation." Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh a/k/a Osho cataloged hundreds of them in his multi-volume "Book of Secrets" a few years back. There was a caveat in the health benefits of meditation article here (whatever the correct name is) that benefits shown by scientific experiments to derive from Transcendental Meditation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques. Someone deleted that, and I think I remember who it was, but I'm not going to guess right now or look it up right now. . Not knowing how long Momento has been following Rawat, I don't know how disingenuous he is being in calling the "meditation" techniques "self exploration," or whatever the euphemism was. The intense concentration model from the early 1970's had the positive benefit of curing some (but not all) heroin addicts, but did not have the self-discovery benefits of, for example, Vipasana meditation practice supervised by an experienced teacher. That's another criticism of Rawat, of course -- no competent supervision of the meditators, and an apparent intent to completely suppress the mind, rather than remove emotional blockages discovered in meditation through forgiveness and other "skillful means." . By the same token, it seems disingenuous to call Rawat a "motivational speaker," when his entire message appears to be that he can give you "peace of mind" if he teaches you to meditate. A self-inflicted "software lobotomy" is not the kind of "peace" anyone in his right mind would be looking for, however, and given the 1973 attack on Pat Halley, it doesn't appear likely to eliminate all of the causes of war. . However, I wouldn't completely oppose a modification to indicate that Rawat currently describes himself as a "motivational speaker." That's certainly true, whether the description is accurate or not. Perhaps I'm advocating "weasel words," but that might be a reasonable compromise. . Anyway, the article as currently written, is generally referred to as a "whitewash" by former meditation students (who, through a kind of bait-and-switch wound up being devotees of the living God instead), and Jossi continues to use his cute little interpretation of BLP to stifle all criticism of Rawat.

Wowest (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowest, you seem to take the view that 35 years of NOT practising Knowledge or being in contact with Prem Rawat makes you an authority on the subject. Strange thinking to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, Rumiton. That was a fairly intelligent comment, and, of course, honest. On the other hand, opinions of ex-premies who left more recently are readily available. You know where.

Of course, I've had the benefit of inside information on other, similar cults from their former members. DLM had mind-control overkill, and, of course, I'm talking about DLM, which no longer exists. I've just been learning about your confidential "team trainings" and the top-secret DECA project from later ex-s. Fascinating stuff.

Wowest (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving India section

Shifted Time Magazine quote to here where it seems to fit in better. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Millenium, I am also having a problem with the words "as a result" which follow the statements about low turnout and financial loss. Since this was a free event, it would seem to me that there can be no connection between the attendance and the financial returns. As a source above says, the cause appears to be simple over-spending. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this Millennium sentence "Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people would attend the free event, actual attendance was estimated at 25,000 by followers and 10,000 by police." needs improvement. It is generally conceded that the attendance was around 20,000 by independent estimates, so claiming the followers claimed it was 25,000 and police claimed it 10,000 suggests dishonesty on behalf of the followers.Momento (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, Momento. Controversial events always have police attendance estimates which are far below organizer estimates. If you don't think Millennium '73 wasn't controversial, you just weren't there. Wowest (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, I'm talking about what many sources say.Momento (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obtained copies of NY Times and see several conflicting numbers as well as useful context added.Momento (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[undenting] The attendance figures are taken directly from the most contemporary reliable source, and most accurately reflect the attendance. Later stories, especially in encyclopedias where space is limited, sometimes said "about 20,000" to save space, but that is less accurate. The different attendance estimates don't suggest anything; they are a statement of fact. Police estimates invariably are smaller than those of event organizers. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the claims of each. We don't need to do the thinking for readers; that's exactly what OR is.

Also, it doesn't matter if YOU have a problem with the words "as a result". That is what several reliable sources say, and your arguments to the contrary are OR. If you want to know why, DLM accepts contributions, and highly publicized successful events bring donations both immediately and over the long run. The event was a failure (sources use words like "fiasco" but I chose more neutral ones) and the expected contributions didn't materialize. It's not rocket science. Msalt (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80

Can anyone who has Downton tell me which year this happened? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The sense of independence expressed by Alan was the trend by the close of 1976. It was a contributing factor, I feel, in the exodus, of premies from the ashrams, the emphasis on the development of careers outside the Mission, the group dynamics phase, and the general lack of interest in propagation. "A quick look at Divine Light Mission today might lead one to believe that it is falling to pieces," Alan said that year. "In fact, Divine Light Mission, as we know it, may not exist too much longer. Premies are now leaving the ashrams in droves-officially, at the rate of 2 to 3 per day. That may not seem like much, but, at that rate all the ashrams will be empty by the end of the year. The staff in Denver was 250 just a couple of months ago. Now it is 80. Donations have dropped in half. Nobody knows for sure what is happening, why it is happening, or if we will weather the crisis." So it would seem to have been 1976. Jayen466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen. I will try to look at the time sequence of this ref tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

Could someone more clued-up than me have a look at what the archive bot is doing? The most recent archive is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_31 but it is not accessible from the archive menu (the bottom link there leads to the older http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_30 ). Also, the numbering of archive pages goes 1, 3, 4 for no apparent reason that I can discern (2 is missing, even though each line clearly starts with a hash). Jayen466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot only makes the archives, but it does not update the archive links in this page. I have added Archive 31 to the list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Westernization

We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about that myself. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about adding word "meditation" before "techniques", for clarity? Msalt (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made it "techniques for inner exploration." Hope that does the job. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Meditation is a neutral description used by nearly all of our reliable sources. "Inner exploration" is POV cheerleading, and has no meaning to the average reader. Msalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in fact I agree. The word meditation had already been used, so I stuck in inner exploration while I tried to think of a synonym. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Msalt. "Inner exploration" sounds like science fiction. "Meditation techniques" sounds better to me.Momento (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands this section now has Rawat giving up his "divine status" twice. Jayen, you seem good at smoothing chronology, perhaps you can give it a tidy up.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems he kind of did give it up twice. The first time was around 1975, when premies did their own American-style magazine, did Human Potential-type groups and so forth, and left the Ashrams to get jobs; but then Rawat encouraged devotion again, and the whole thing took a step back, it seems; so it took a few years, and then the Indian-type devotion was finally given up for good. Sound near the mark? Jayen466 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the westernization section deal from 1980 until 1999 and during that period he gave it up once and for all in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try for middle ground

Francis, I don't think edits like this one [6] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should explain what Lans and derks thought that the DLM or Rawat meant with the mind. Andries (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Jayen. This article used to be facts based on scholars opinion. When editors add stuff like "the mind is evil" or "Rawat is banal", it is clearly a cheap shot that needs to be reverted or rebutted. Since you can't revert this drivel, you have to add material to explain a comment taken out of context. As for middle ground, we don't want to end in the middle, we want to end up with the truth, Rawat is innocent until proven guilty>Momento (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly against these cheap shots. Apart from that, we don't have to make a judgment on Rawat; and the truth is also that some people have made these criticisms. I am not against including that criticism, as long as it is attributed, accurately represented, and the article does not identify with it. To that extent, Francis made sense above. Jayen466 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902#_note-41

Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [7], because that really made more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry, forget I mentioned it. Jayen466 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention anything? - I already forgot. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. But FYI, my contention doesn't contradict yours. The only substantial changes in that year had been removing quite some scholarly sources, and adding multiple references to the Cagan book that had appeared in 2007 (which, as I think we agreed, is not a scholarly source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Francis. The version you reverted to, removed a completely re-written article based on peer reviews and GA feedback. The fact that you disagreed with that version, was no grounds for dismissing one and a half year of edits. In any case, that is behind us now. Let's focus on moving forward, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Francis reverted from was an article rewritten entirely by Momento, Rumiton, and yourself, Jossi while you took ownership of it and stonewalled myself and everyone else from making any substantive edits. I disagreed with many of Vassayana's suggestions but was ignored as was Andries and PatW. I never approved of it, agreed with it, including Vassyana's recommendations. The three of you essentially considered it a concensus when the three of you agreed, while ignoring everyone else. Stop revising history, please.

Getting back to the subject. Maharaji's major teachings included his frequent demonization of one's mind. That was his primary focus for many, many years: By receiving Knowledge and practicing meditation, listening to satsang, and doing service, premies would find happiness, inner peace, surrender and devotion to him, and therefore, all of life's answers would be found (without the mind chattering away in our heads). It's not up to editors to try to define and/or interpret what Rawat meant by "mind." I strongy discourage doing that. Just report what the sources say and trust readers to come to their own conclusions about the definition of "mind." That said, there are plenty of his quotes that represent the way Maharaji views a person's mind. Especially read "Mind, the Unseen Demon." Maharaji on "Mind". Sylviecyn (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [8] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the three original sources (those that were there before Momento's insertions), back to the end of the sentence where they were before Momento's insertions. I have no idea whether the two sources added by Momento are the most appropriate sources for the sentence he added (but since they're behind that sentence now, and Momento added them at the same time as that new sentence, I suppose so).

Please check.

As a side note, Hunt 2003 p. 116 and/or p. 117 is now reference in 5 footnotes, three with a quote of several sentences of those two pages. Those 5 footnotes are used in total 9 times as a reference. The edit by Momento mentioned by Msalt above also introduced one of these Hunt footnotes (without a quote in the footnote text). Could we maybe clean that up? I mean: make a single footnote out of that, used 9 times and with no more quoted text than necessary? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done – for the time being I kept the full Hunt text as found on /scholars in the single footnote, while it is difficult to see what he said about which period when singling off sentences. But I agree the text in the Hunt footnote can be shortened now, keeping only what we actually need. Note that Hunt doesn't go in any detail that the transformation (which he supposes to have started somewhere resulting from the Millennium '73 experience, continuing up to the early 80s Elan Vital name change) in fact went in several stages (for which we have other sources, like Downton). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Momento banned to outer darkness? God knows how that could be done. How about banning Jossi too while we're at it? :-) Seriously though, what I would like to see is attention drawn to this article in a wider way. I think if enough neutral people arrive at the same conclusion as you, maybe Prem Rawat himself will step in and call off his servants from their naughty day and night activities. He might even give them something more constructive to do with all that time on their hands.PatW (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) PatW (talk)

19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a "neutral" editor, as we all bring our biases when we edit. The issue is not about being neutral, but about being able to edit with the principles of NPOV. Jaen, Will, Francis, Msalt, and all others have their biases, and have been forming opinions on the subject as they edit, and that it is natural. Some of them (my assessment) are better than others to remain impartial, and all of them as well as editors that have a close relationship with the subject be that pro, or con, can also contribute as long as they make efforts to comply with NPOV. At the end of the day, it is the collaboration of all involved, within a framework of respect and the buildup of consensus, that yields the results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow Jossi...Thank you SO much for that revelatory news. We really needed you to enlighten us about that (for the five millioneth time). So what do you think about last MSalts question then? I somehow think you might have missed his/her point.PatW (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairness and POV versus possible hidden agendas in editing articles about Prem Rawat

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Information I have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs) Please remove this libellous material. The only sources for your so-called research are Elan Vital and one-reality -- the website that was sued by Marianne Bachers and in settlement of the same was required to remove all defamation material about her. Those are the only two such places you could have possibly done any research to gather the "information" you placed above that libels myself and other editors here using our names. But, here's website you can peruse if you're really interested in reporting about fairness: Marianne Bachers v DOES 1 TO 20,INCLUSIVE Cause of Action: DEFAMATION. Wiki's well-regarded editor, Jossi Fresco is named in that legal action. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I have not used any names, and therefore my posting is not libelous. I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) The posts by IsabellaW violate WP:No_personal_attacks as she attempts to associate editors here with unrelated people in an attempt to defame by association, and by linking to a site that attacks former followers of Rawat that is not WP:RS. Also, she makes no attempt to comment on the content of this article. Jossi, if you are reading this I hope you will remove Isabella's posts and give her an appropriate warning on her talk page. --John Brauns (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I have warned the user, but I have been asked at WP:AN/I not to refactor any comments from talk pages anymore. Maybe Jaen or others can use {{hat}} at the top of this thread, and {{hab}} at he bottom to collapse the thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar

... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a redirect to the page. Again, Wikipedia is not a puzzle where average readers have to connect dots via information that is available elsewhere, or even worse by digging into diffs at Wikipedia (how to find diffs is not prerequired knowledge for being a reader of a Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a long section on the names and meanings of them (in the "Childhood" section), but it was agreed that it was not necessary.

In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare [9] – Sant Ji is currently not a redirect, but the "Sant" tradition is still explained in the article, so no problem there.

See also Wikipedia:Consensus can change

The idea is that if someone types a word in the search box, say "Balyogeshwar", that then the Wikipedia:principle of least surprise should apply, and not: why am I directed to this page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that currently one of the footnotes [10] contains: "Balyogeshwar and his brother have ...":

1. Quoted from a 1992 publication (Prem Rawat was 25 at the time - "child"?);
2. This is the only other mentioning of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article. How are average readers supposed to understand that sentence, if it would not be indicated in the article that Balyogeshwar == Prem Rawat? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposing the idea of including the quotation I placed above. I would argue that if it is useful, it should be placed in the Childhood section and not in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark (and insertion of the alternate name) is really purely usability/navigational/"principle of least surprise". Not knowing what to think that you guys appear to be able to make anything as simple as that into something that needs to be included in a POV-pushers agenda. THERE IS NO POV IN MENTIONING THE ALTERNATE NAME OF AN INCOMING LINK IN THE LEAD SECTION. We do it everywere: Pontius Pilate's wife has six alternate names in bold in the first sentence; William III of England has at least as many alternate names in the first three paragraphs of the intro; Erik Satie has two pen names in the third paragraph of the intro; Bolzano of course mentions "Bozen" (and 5 other alternatives) in the first sentence of the intro, etc. etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed this uncited inclusion.Momento (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar can be sourced to Cagan's book. I still believe that it is better placed at the Childhood section, has he was called these names only for the first 8 years of his life. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have once again had to remove the uncited material about Balyogeshwar. This is a BLP Francis, you can't just include stuff because you like it.Momento (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) The material is cited to a RS (in fact, a RS that was already in the article) [11]; (2) You removed, without discernable reason, material that had a reference. Then, you also left the referencing footnote in the first sentence, while it is unclear why this would be a reference for the phrase where it is now attached to [12] <ref name="Mangalwadi"> does apparently not use "Guru Maharaj Ji" when referring to Prem Rawat: that source uses "Balyogeshwar" when referring to him. All of this amounts to some pretty disruptive editing on your part. (3) why on earth would it be a BLP to mention an incoming redirect in the lead section? (compare Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title: "The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.") --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

References should appear at the end of the sentence. Thanks.Momento (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. Wikipedia:Footnotes is on my watchlist now for quite some time, since I wrote its initial version. Such requirement has never been part of the style recommendations included in that guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Mangalwadi reference Francis. You haven't provided a source for your addition "less frequently".Momento (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't dispute the name then please don't delete the name. It's unhelpful to delete parts that you don't dispute. If the name is disputed then the redirect should be deleted too. If the reidrect is undisputed then it should be mentioned here. Alternate names are traditionally mentioned in the lede. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pay more attention to what I write. I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source. But where did the "less frequently" come from if not out of Francis's OR.Momento (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, disruptive editing on your part. You could have removed the few words you contested, without removing the part you didn't contest. And even less disruptive, you could simply have followed what the third paragraph of Wikipedia *policy* WP:V#Burden of evidence advises: "...editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". I do object, while you're obviously too interested in finding ways to game the system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What Francis said. If you don't like "less frequently" then take it out. It is completely unreasonable and contentious to remove the whole referenced phrase. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor is responsible for their edits. Francis should never have put "less frequently" in, it is complete OR. So I am not removing "the whole referenced phrase" since the "whole phrase is NOT referenced". I don't believe Balyogeshwar should be in the lede. One, suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR. Prem Rawat is his legal name and he has chosen to use Maharaji ( formerly Guru Maharaj ji) and continues to do so. And two, Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.Momento (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Wikipedia article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento -- uh, you just said yourself 3 paragraphs earlier that "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." You're way out on a limb here. Seriously, pick your battles. This is a tiny, non-controversial thing. Alternate names go in the lede. I'm glad you're discussing this here but what you are saying makes no sense. Msalt (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar isn't alternative name. It's an historic title of little consequence. If you put in Balyogeshwar, you have to put in Sant Ji.Momento (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "have to", but I personally think 'Sant Ji' should be listed too. Francis? As I've said, the lineage through the Sant tradition is (to me) fascinating and a perfect example of the kind of information an encyclopedia should provide -- like noting that the band The White Stripes derive from the blues tradition. One doesn't understand them nearly as well without knowing that. Msalt (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Names related to Rawat's Childhood may well come within the purview of WP:INDIA, excising these names because they are 'historic' and therefore of little consequence would seem at very least to go against the spirit of WP:INDIA and it is surely poor manners to remove the Indian titles from the lede without any reference to WP:INDIA.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic things are not of little consequence? Balyogeshwar=Iron lady? I understood that Balyogeshwar means 'Born Lord of Yogis' I can remember that much myself from 1975 when I asked what it meant. (By the way he was still called that well into the mid-seventies and still IS known by that title to many Indians who are naturally uninformed as to how he's changed his name since then. Also there are Indians here in the UK who call him that still! Shouldn't they be able to find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? Watching this debate from a distance (rather than being personally subject to Momento's simply puerile, tortuous logic for once) it's very obvious that he is an outrageously hostile editor who is simply mocking the intelligence of the incredibly patient other editors here. I really think it's way beyond time he was banned from this article . There has been such consistent and vociferous complaint already something surely needs to be done now. I would classify his obstructive comments here as aggressive 'filibustering'. Msalt, and others.. have you considered the possible abject futility of ploughing on with your corrections here as you are patiently doing? I worry about your future sanity when you take a well-earned break to return only to find that he has completely reverted the article to his taste. That's what he is waiting to do. Is there anything that can be done to protect your work? You may have noticed I have been terminally discouraged from making actual edits. That is not because I can't, it's because I am not prepared to let him mock my efforts any more than he has done already. How many people actually stick around here to make substantial sense of this article? My observation is that 90% have fled in frustration and that is basically because no-one has successfully banned Jossi, Momento and their POV pushing friends from acting as if they own and should control the information in this article. Isn't it the case that Jossi has successfully banned some rather eloquent ex-premie voices from here for far less crimes? What is so fair about that when he tolerates this degree of disruption , year in year out from Momento?PatW (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) You do not have to shout; (b) I have banned no one; (c) I cannot and have not exercised my admin privileges in this or any other article I have actively edited; (e) I have warned editor, including Momento in many occasions; (f) despite all the brouhaha no one has been able to provide any evidence of abuse in editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK if it is true that you have banned no one then I unmitigatingly apologise. But please tell me by what process have people been banned? I understood that some ex-premies were banned? Is that untrue then?PatW (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have deleted my heading which you think was unnecessarily loud.PatW (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, no one has been banned. Maybe some editors had their editing privileges temporarily removed, for disruption, personal attacks, or edit warring, but that's all. And these remedies were implemented by uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW, I certainly understand your frustration, but I think you undercut yourself with your anger and personal attacks. Above all, please do not lump Jossi in with Momento. I haven't been here that long but from what I've seen Jossi has been (with only brief exception) patient, thoughtful, and fair-minded. He has even borne arguably patronizing advice from this noob with good grace. I can't find a single edit he's made to the article in 2 weeks. His talk contributions are, yes, mostly to the pro-Rawat side but not exclusively and so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. The COI filing on him failed because no one could list edits or administrative actions that bore criticism. Your apology to him above was very nice, thanks for doing that.

People can and should get chastised, limited or even banned for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Only Momento has in my brief time here, and he earned it for disruptive editing. Thanks for not doing that. Clearly, he is taking actions that risk some kind of permanent ban. But your attacks are also inappropriate, and in any case aren't doing your cause any good.

And thanks for the compliment and warning (patience but have you considered the futility?). I think I understand the situation. It COULD all be reverted -- any work done on Wikipedia is like that. Then again, peace has broken out in Northern Ireland and Liberia, so you never know. I'm inspired by the Tibetan monks who spend hours making beautiful sand paintings and let them blow away in the wind. Don't you think the world is a better place for that? Otherwise, all one can do is build bunkers. Msalt (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A better analogy might be that the Tibetan Monks paintings are being trashed by someone before the wind blows them away and that there are quite a few people that want to see those paintings who are being deprived of the opportunity. I've slept on your last question and I wake up with these thoughts: There may be no virtue lost in fighting, but ultimately losing a righteous battle. It is certainly more desirable to win a righteous battle and wiser to only engage in fights where you know your strength and are sure of winning. I understand there is some value in simply arguing for right but I think there is even more value in winning your case. WP fascinates me in as much as it is almost an experiment in defining ethics by teamwork. WP sort of invites unethical people to abuse/game the system and then people publicly challenge them on it, really only appealing to their shame to withdraw, but not actually forcing them. Interesting experiment indeed. PatW (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For Jossi's commitment to not edit the page, see the link in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Declaration of intent. I want to express again I appreciate Jossi for that. It was no easy call on his part, I'm convinced of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, I see that "Balyogeshwar" has been added, but not " Sant Ji Maharaj". Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession says that it was the name used by Rawat in 1966. It seems easy to simply list former names. Will Beback NS (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it. Msalt (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that anyone would claim Rawat is known as Sant Ji in the lede. Sant Ji is an affectionate term used by many Indian teachers and used about Rawat when he was a child. Why not put in Prem as well? Or Guru Ji. Or Captain Rawat? For more than 30 years Rawat has used either his own name or the title Maharaji (Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji), this is the only "alternative name" we should include. Balyogeshwar is a Hindi description given by others when Rawat was a child, not an "alternative name". Since there is no reliable, verifiable source that claims Rawat is currently "known as" Sant JI" I have removed it. Momento (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, above you wrote:

[...] Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.

I answered

The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Wikipedia article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right Francis. We'll note that in the lede.Momento (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names. All of these names are used as redirects to this article.[13] If you don't want them in the lede then which section do you propose we put them in? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(examples I already gave above:)

• Here's an example of no differentiation in the lead section: Pontius Pilate's wife
• Here's one with lots of differentiation in the lead section: William III of England

For my views:

• "(Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji)" can stay in, at a certain point in time he disavowed to be further called "Guru";
• "Balyogeshwar" should definitely stay in the lead, too different from the other ones, too "principle of least surprise" when redirected here. That it is less used is referenceable, still not understanding the fuss Momento makes about it. In fact he recognised it himself: "suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR" - it is no OR to state it is used less frequently. Instead of nitpicking, you're better informed what would be the best source for that, but as far as I'm concerned it doesnt need a specific source, it's self-evident. It is not "contested", unless for POINTy reasons;
• "Sant Ji", not necessarily: Sant is explained in the article, and "Ji" is a recognisable part of his name already explicited in the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that it belongs in the lead. But if there is consensus to have it there, I would argue that it would be best to list them in chronological order, giving emphasis to his most known names (See WP:MOS. My suggestion would be , as per other biographical articles:

Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, December 10, 1957 in Haridwar, India), also Maharaji (previously known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji,) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, he's still known as "Balyogeshwar", although that's maybe not what he chose: "being known as" is not what one chooses for oneself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that claim please?Momento (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as this source [14] is still widely available, and people can read it, he's still known under that name. That's not something that changes in a few years, as is also apparent here [15] - this has nothing to do with the reliability of a source, someone is "known as", or he isn't. The lead of William III of England states this king is "known as" King Billy. Whether he liked it or not. And without a reference, because that's not contested. So stop the nitpicking on trivialities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This 1992 print refers to Divine Light Mission, clearly dating it to the 70s. And please don't use self published websites as sources, they are expressly prohibited by BLP policy.Momento (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, do you support Momento unilaterally deleting "Sant Ji" despite this discussion? [16] Does anyone support Momento's edit? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, as proposed above, we could list his childhood names in the "Childhood" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The "objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names" is simple and logical. Prem Rawat is his name and he calls himself "Maharaji". Putting in a foreign language courtesy title (Blayogeshwar) and an affectionate childhood name is unnecessary.Momento (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, (this might come as a shock) "There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. [...]" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity) --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, is it too hard for you to wait for a consensus before editing? If "Sant Ji" isn't a name that Rawat is known by then we should delete the redirect. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing it because it doesn't have a source. BLP policy is clear " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As said above: the material is not contentious, unless for POINTy reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If Momento believes that it is incorrect then it should be removed from Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession too the and the redirect should be deleted. If there are no objections I'll do so myself. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "contentious" Francis. To be removed it just needs to be "unsourced".Momento (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're just pasting quotes without even *reading* them:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately [...]

(my bolding) If the material is not contentious, just removing it is no more nor less than causing disruption. And it has to stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". I don't know why I always have to be the one to point out the obvious, Wikipedia demands sources as per "Verifiable" - Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. AND "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". This is basic Wikipedia stuff. Momento (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote only speaks about contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced. And your disruption has to stop. Your other new quotes only confirm what I say (BTW, it goes all back to a Jimbo Wales quote, who qualifies the type of information eligible for instant removal thus: "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" [17]). E.g. (with my bolding): "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". There's no blanket approval to remove uncontentious, unchallenged, and unlikely to be challenged material. Removing such material is known as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Even if there's no reference yet. And you're slowly but with determination running out of chances to prove that you're not a troll or some sort of vandal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the structure of sentence to alter its meaning is completely unacceptable Francis. The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". Not "contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced". Why aren't we following the Verifiability policy which clearly states - "that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". It is a core policy of Wikipedia, no source, no inclusion.Momento (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your disruption has to stop, that's all I'm saying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, please cool it, OK? Can we stick for a while to a decent and constructive debate? Progress is being made, and will be made if editors keep away from each other's throats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct Will. The succession sentence implies that Prem Rawat was known as "Sant Ji" not "Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing? He was called "Sant Ji" until 8 years of age. Then he was called "Balygeshwar" along side "Guru Maharaj Ji". (Some in India still recognize him as Balyogeshwar from the early days). Then he was called just "Maharaji". All these names can be explained and are supported by sources. Can we at least agree on that first? Then we can look for ways on how best to present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The principle is under what name he should be recognisable from the outset of the article. I gave my preferences above. Whether one is more historically correct or not is not the point. The lead section is about recognition: am I at the right article?, etc for readers who are or who are not acquainted with the article's subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Source for "Sant Ji": H. W. Wilson Company, Current Biography Year Book, v.35. (1974), p. 21.
• Source for "Balyogeshwar" Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone I know and trust has written to me telling me that in India Rawat's followers generally have never known him as Guru Maharaj Ji, as that is a title given to practically any guru in India, but they know him as Balyogeshwar. Of course this source can't be used in the article, but it does cast doubt on Jossi's claim that the name was only used when Rawat was a child. My vote, for what it's worth, is that the name should be included in the lede. --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh? I said above that in India, some still recognize him as Balyogeswar. You may have missed it. Nowadays he is known as "Maharaji" and "Shree Prem Rawat" in India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to point out that there are older Indians here in the UK who still call Rawat 'Balyogeshwar'. Shouldn't older Indian people be catered for to easily find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? What's the big deal in making the association clear and in the lede? Isn't it logical and appropriate to state what a subjects name is and was before you launch into further commentary? Especially if those names were significantly popular or widespread, as Balyogeshwar clearly was?PatW (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is agreement that the name "Balyogeshwar" can be used, as there are sources that verify that information. The discussion, I believe, is where to have that information, and if it suitable for a the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi do you ever read what I actually write before trotting out some knee jerk response which shows that you haven't? Read again and you'll see I was saying why I think his popular name(s) should be made clear first thing.PatW (talk)

I'm OK with John Brauns' version of the intro [18] - which I think is my last version of the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got home from work and had to read 4460 new words of discussion just to keep up to date on everyone's opinion of one word of text. Rumiton (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what's so beautiful about this place. It's not just about the end goal it's about learning to enjoy the journey. The beauty lies in arriving at an ethical consensus by debate even if that means debating minutiae, sometimes ad nauseam.  :-)PatW (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, Jossi has given us sources for the use of "Sant Ji", a name that you deleted from the article because it was unsourced. Could you please restore it now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting affectionate names from childhood in the article. And I'm wondering about putting foreign language names like Balyogeshwar in English Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A) We have sources that indicate it was the name he was called in childhood. B) We have no sources saying it was merely an "affectionate name". C) We use that name in other articles that include redirects to this article. D) Your personal preferences are not the sole determination of content. You're welcome to disagree, but deleting sourced material based on your personal preferences is inappropriate. Unless you can find a legitimate policy reaosn to exclude this name, and to delte it from elsewhere on Wikipedia, I am going to restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone for long enough, and we have sources now. Can we find a compromise and add these names (Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar) to the "Childhood" section as a compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento's objections don't appear to be about the placement of the names in the article, but about their inclusion anywhere. It's normal to include all names in the lede, but there's certainly room for flexibility in that regard. There appears to be doubt that the terms were limited to his childhood, so it's not ideal. Perhaps a better solution would be to mention the names in the lead and then explaining his names as they are applicable to the different time periods. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We're solidly on target for Lamest Edit Wars with this one, I'm afraid. Glad we agree on having the name. How about putting the alternate names in a separate second paragraph of the lede? Msalt (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede. Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977. Sant JI was an affectionate Hindi childhood name not used in 30 years. This is English Wikipedia or should we also write Prem Rawat in Hebrew for our Israeli readers..Momento (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please stop filibustering, and start informing yourself; e.g.:

• "Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977" – we have at least two books, as far as I can see published in the Western hemisphere, and I don't even know which of these would be from 1977:
  • Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus Revised edition (July 1992). Cornerstone Pr Chicago. ISBN 094089503X (this is the one currently in the article - note that there's a 1999 revised edition too [19])
  • Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006 [20])

These petty discussions based on thin air should've stopped by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) updated book references 12:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento wrote: "I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede". Apparently "Guru Maharaj Ji" was also a temporary title. Are there any legitimate reasons to exclude these widely-used names from the intro? If not can we please agree on adding these names to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, only Momento has objected to including these alternate names in the article, though I seem to recall that Jossi may have suggested placing them later in the article. How about a second paragraph in the lede to the effect of "Throughout his career, Rawat has gone by the names "Guru Maharaji Ji", "Maharaji", "Sant Ji" and "Balyogeshwar" in addition to his given name." Msalt (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian people give their children long names, rather as Greek people do. Then later they add nicknames and sometimes titles. It all really doesn't matter, these days he goes by his passport name, Prem Rawat, and is addressed as Maharaji by people who have known him for a long time. I do, however, object to the phrase he has gone by... It sounds as if he were a stage act or minor criminal. These are nothing other than alternative forms of address, in a culture where this is often done and connotes nothing. Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sant Ji (section break)

As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).

As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Wikipedia on this person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sant Ji was an affectionate diminutive for Prem Rawat as a child, never used since. Sant is Hindi, roughly means "holy man." Ji is not a name, it is a mild honorific, like Mr in English, or San in Japanese. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Guru Maharaj Ji referred to himself as "Sant Ji Maharaj" in many letters to premies over the years in the 70s, including after he was married at age 16, by virtue of signing those letters "Sant Ji Maharaj." These letters were published in "And It Is Divine," and "Divine Times" magazines in which he was listed as the "Supreme Editor in Chief." They were published in the United States out of DLM Headquarters in Denver, Colorado. Sant Ji was a moniker that Rawat commonly used when writing to his devotees, so he absolutely was known as "Sant ji Maharaj." Here's one that was published in "Divine Times" in Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974, in which he thanks premies for providing him and Durga Ji (Marolyn) with his home in Malibu, California (the same one in which he now resides): Thank You Letter, and here's the one inviting premies to Millennium: Millennium Letter. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I think, Sylvie. I had forgotten that Sant Ji signature, it was a long time ago. Still, in 1973 at 15 years old Prem Rawat WAS still a child, so my statement really holds. I doubt whether it has been used in the last 34 years, and it still seems profoundly irrelevant. I was right about Ji, wasn't I? Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just learned that James Randi was also known as Randall Zwinge. How should we deal with it? I think we need to say something like "James Randi, formerly known as Randall Zwinge, a former magician claims Rawat was fat and a fraud". Any thoughts?Momento (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that your sarcasm is not constructive. There is a consensus that the other names used for Rawat belong on the page, as a natural part of an encyclopedia. Readers should know that the names point to the same person. To take you comment seriously for a second, feel free to edit the James Randi page along the same principles. Msalt (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we still don't have "Sant Ji" or "Sant Ji Maharaj" in the article. It's entirely verifiable. If the theory is that things which happened 34 years ago are irrelevant we can cut out half of the article. If past actions are legitimate material for biographies then we shold include past names too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be added. The source is available above somewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be consensus that the names might be appropriately added some where but there is no consensus that childhood names should appear in the lede.Momento (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Momento, please re-add the "Sant Ji" anme that you've inapproprately deleted. As for the position, there's no consensus moveing other names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus about the position of these names. Not a big deal, IMO, but lets call it as it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Sant Ji. Seems to be a popular nickname... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you endorse Momento's deletion of this sourced material name from the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the names should be added, and that we still need to find consensus about the best section in the article to place the names by which he was known as a child. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So will Momento delete the name again if it's added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The odds are good that s/he will, in my opinion. But it's still correct to add it. I've suggested adding all of the alternate names in the second paragraph of the lede. Did I miss a reaction to that compromise? Or maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. Anyway, whaddya think? Msalt (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but I'm not the editor who's edit warring over this. Momento appears to be holding this article hostage to his preferences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we still don't have any mention of "Sant Ji Maharaj". Current footnote 20 says: "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of processionists culminating in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering." I suggest we add to the text it references (in the "Childhood" section), "...then known as Sant Ji Maharaj..." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar (continued)

The way Balyogeshwar is bolded in the Lede, alongside with Maharaji, is rather misleading, as Maharaji is for some decades now state of things, while Balyogeshwar really isn't, and enough people know that, too. So it appears to me as a piece of, albeit highly literate, ignorance and should be changed, there have been enough suggestions in the incredible discussion above. I would put both child names - Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji - into the childhood section, where they VERY OBVIOUSLY belong, but I hate being reprimanded again for a revert...--Rainer P. (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Putting a name by which he is only known in India in the lede is illogical.Momento (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The name Balyogeshwar is bolded because it's a redirect to this article. Does anyone object to my adding "Sant Ji Maharaj" as proposed above? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK in the childhood section, along with Balyogeshwar, see above extremely extensive discussion--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks awkward in the lede. Remember, the prefix "Bal" in Hindi means "Child" (doesn't it?), as in "Bal Bhagwan Ji" and Balyogeshwar. It really does not fit a 50-year old person. Neither is Satpal Rawat referred to as Bal Bhagwan Ji any more, except in a historic context. And your source Mangalwadi mentions the name only to differenciate Prem R. from his also mentioned brother, which was a plausible issue in their young years. And I find it hard to understand, why this seems to be so hard to realize, and it's not even really contentious per POV, so what's the motive for so stubbornly defending the deficient status quo, when it's so easy to improve?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Balyogeshwar" should be included in the lede for convenience in further research. Until the middle of 1973, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Prem Rawat as "Balyogeshwar: Boy Guru." I believe this was done to avoid confusing him with Baba Ram Das's more famous guru, also called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and more formally known as "Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba." Wowest (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why in the lede, on equal footing with the current denomination from decades? When it's only a historic (1973!) bit? In a way it derogates the current notability of the subject (unintentionally, I presume).It goes together well with the dominant backward orientation of the article and some of its editors, but contrasts with all the quality research that has been visibly put into it. Researchers would find it just as easly, if it were put into the childhood section, wouldn't they?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep Balyogeshwar in the lede, but to add "in his childhood" instead of "in India". I think it is correct that the name can only be used about a child, because of the prefix Bal- (which means child), but on the other hand, he was a very prominent figure, playing an adult role in his childhood. There is a 1973 article by Khushwant Singh in the New York Times which uses the name Balyogeshwar to refer to him ("Balyogeshwar, the Child God ... Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar."). So the name has enough notability to be in the lede IMO; it was not only used in his family, as a term of endearment, but was the name under which he was known for several years as the leader of the DLM movement. Jayen466 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An agreeable compromise, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no: it is still in a sentence after "known as..." He was known as Balyogeshwar far beyond his childhood, proven by sources (there are many more in Google Book Search, which not necessarily lists all sources either, e.g. this 1996 University of Chicago book). We don't need to qualify any of this: there are books published in the US in the late 20th century favoring Balyogeshwar over any of the other names he is known by, so why would we provide elaborations that are neither accurate, nor applying brevity expected from lead sections.

And again this is becoming all a bit childish (pun intended), he was known under that name, and mentioning that is all that is needed per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title for the lead section. If you want to reiterate any of this with a broader scope in the article, no problem for me, I said I didn't comment on that yet (and probably won't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it sounds as if he were called both Maharaji and Balyogeshwar in his childhood, when really these names belong to not even contingent different stages of his evolution. There must have been a decade or more between the use of these names. Suggestions to make this plain?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put a comma in in the hope that that helps. As for the contiguousness of the names, note the above from Singh's 1973 article: Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar. Jayen466 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,[2][3] is a speaker".Momento (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to stick by what the words mean. Balyogeshwar means, literally, a "child master of yoga" or, given that he is male, "boy master of yoga". As such, the name is specifically, and explicitly to those who speak the language, a honorific for a child. It is natural for books covering the events of his childhood (and especially those written by Western writers unfamiliar with Hindi) to refer to him by the name he was then, as a child, known by. I very much doubt that there would be Hindi sources referring to him as Balyogeshwar, except in the historical sense, after, say, 1975. Jayen466 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The translation I had from a Sanskrit scholar was (Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis.) Prem Rawat was known in India under that specific name when he was 8 years of age. Later on people referred to him as Guru Maharaji, or simply Maharaj ji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See Macdonnell Sanskrit dictionary: "yogesvara (p. 247) [ yoga-îsvara ] m. lord of mystic power; adept in magic." (yoga = union, connection, etc.; isvara = ruler, lord, prince, king.) From the same dictionary: "bala (p. 193) [ 1. bâla ] a. young, not yet full-grown; recently risen (sun), early (rays), new, crescent (moon); childish, puerile, foolish; m. child, boy; minor (under sixteen years of age)." Hope that helps. Jayen466 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one might add that "Lord of the Universe" is a literal translation of yogesvara, i.e. balyogeshwar without the prefix bal(a)- (= child, minor). Again, it should be noted that universe here does not relate to the external universe, galaxies etc., but to the actual etymological meaning of universe as "all turned into one", i.e. the inner experience of union (yoga), or non-duality. Something not many commentators would seem to have understood. Jayen466 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this commentator certainly didn't know that. Fascinating, thank you. On the other hand, it points out the pitfalls of using foreign language words anywhere in any Pedia article, including names and titles. They attract POVers as honey does bears, and extensive explanations and footnotes don't really solve the problem. On balance, while I don't think it is very important, I think Balyogeshwar should be left out altogether as being one small detail too many. To me a lot of the subtext of this article and the controversy that has arisen concerns the value and difficulties that arise when a foreign culture/religion is swallowed without first chewing it. The job is already difficult enough. Rumiton (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating indeed. Thanks Jaen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Westernization

We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about that myself. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about adding word "meditation" before "techniques", for clarity? Msalt (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made it "techniques for inner exploration." Hope that does the job. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Meditation is a neutral description used by nearly all of our reliable sources. "Inner exploration" is POV cheerleading, and has no meaning to the average reader. Msalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in fact I agree. The word meditation had already been used, so I stuck in inner exploration while I tried to think of a synonym. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Msalt. "Inner exploration" sounds like science fiction. "Meditation techniques" sounds better to me.Momento (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands this section now has Rawat giving up his "divine status" twice. Jayen, you seem good at smoothing chronology, perhaps you can give it a tidy up.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems he kind of did give it up twice. The first time was around 1975, when premies did their own American-style magazine, did Human Potential-type groups and so forth, and left the Ashrams to get jobs; but then Rawat encouraged devotion again, and the whole thing took a step back, it seems; so it took a few years, and then the Indian-type devotion was finally given up for good. Sound near the mark? Jayen466 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the westernization section deal from 1980 until 1999 and during that period he gave it up once and for all in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try for middle ground

Francis, I don't think edits like this one [21] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should explain what Lans and derks thought that the DLM or Rawat meant with the mind. Andries (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Jayen. This article used to be facts based on scholars opinion. When editors add stuff like "the mind is evil" or "Rawat is banal", it is clearly a cheap shot that needs to be reverted or rebutted. Since you can't revert this drivel, you have to add material to explain a comment taken out of context. As for middle ground, we don't want to end in the middle, we want to end up with the truth, Rawat is innocent until proven guilty>Momento (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly against these cheap shots. Apart from that, we don't have to make a judgment on Rawat; and the truth is also that some people have made these criticisms. I am not against including that criticism, as long as it is attributed, accurately represented, and the article does not identify with it. To that extent, Francis made sense above. Jayen466 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902#_note-41

Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [22], because that really made more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry, forget I mentioned it. Jayen466 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention anything? - I already forgot. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. But FYI, my contention doesn't contradict yours. The only substantial changes in that year had been removing quite some scholarly sources, and adding multiple references to the Cagan book that had appeared in 2007 (which, as I think we agreed, is not a scholarly source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Francis. The version you reverted to, removed a completely re-written article based on peer reviews and GA feedback. The fact that you disagreed with that version, was no grounds for dismissing one and a half year of edits. In any case, that is behind us now. Let's focus on moving forward, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Francis reverted from was an article rewritten entirely by Momento, Rumiton, and yourself, Jossi while you took ownership of it and stonewalled myself and everyone else from making any substantive edits. I disagreed with many of Vassayana's suggestions but was ignored as was Andries and PatW. I never approved of it, agreed with it, including Vassyana's recommendations. The three of you essentially considered it a concensus when the three of you agreed, while ignoring everyone else. Stop revising history, please.

Getting back to the subject. Maharaji's major teachings included his frequent demonization of one's mind. That was his primary focus for many, many years: By receiving Knowledge and practicing meditation, listening to satsang, and doing service, premies would find happiness, inner peace, surrender and devotion to him, and therefore, all of life's answers would be found (without the mind chattering away in our heads). It's not up to editors to try to define and/or interpret what Rawat meant by "mind." I strongy discourage doing that. Just report what the sources say and trust readers to come to their own conclusions about the definition of "mind." That said, there are plenty of his quotes that represent the way Maharaji views a person's mind. Especially read "Mind, the Unseen Demon." Maharaji on "Mind". Sylviecyn (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [23] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the three original sources (those that were there before Momento's insertions), back to the end of the sentence where they were before Momento's insertions. I have no idea whether the two sources added by Momento are the most appropriate sources for the sentence he added (but since they're behind that sentence now, and Momento added them at the same time as that new sentence, I suppose so).

Please check.

As a side note, Hunt 2003 p. 116 and/or p. 117 is now reference in 5 footnotes, three with a quote of several sentences of those two pages. Those 5 footnotes are used in total 9 times as a reference. The edit by Momento mentioned by Msalt above also introduced one of these Hunt footnotes (without a quote in the footnote text). Could we maybe clean that up? I mean: make a single footnote out of that, used 9 times and with no more quoted text than necessary? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done – for the time being I kept the full Hunt text as found on /scholars in the single footnote, while it is difficult to see what he said about which period when singling off sentences. But I agree the text in the Hunt footnote can be shortened now, keeping only what we actually need. Note that Hunt doesn't go in any detail that the transformation (which he supposes to have started somewhere resulting from the Millennium '73 experience, continuing up to the early 80s Elan Vital name change) in fact went in several stages (for which we have other sources, like Downton). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Momento banned to outer darkness? God knows how that could be done. How about banning Jossi too while we're at it? :-) Seriously though, what I would like to see is attention drawn to this article in a wider way. I think if enough neutral people arrive at the same conclusion as you, maybe Prem Rawat himself will step in and call off his servants from their naughty day and night activities. He might even give them something more constructive to do with all that time on their hands.PatW (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) PatW (talk)

19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a "neutral" editor, as we all bring our biases when we edit. The issue is not about being neutral, but about being able to edit with the principles of NPOV. Jaen, Will, Francis, Msalt, and all others have their biases, and have been forming opinions on the subject as they edit, and that it is natural. Some of them (my assessment) are better than others to remain impartial, and all of them as well as editors that have a close relationship with the subject be that pro, or con, can also contribute as long as they make efforts to comply with NPOV. At the end of the day, it is the collaboration of all involved, within a framework of respect and the buildup of consensus, that yields the results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow Jossi...Thank you SO much for that revelatory news. We really needed you to enlighten us about that (for the five millioneth time). So what do you think about last MSalts question then? I somehow think you might have missed his/her point.PatW (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairness and POV versus possible hidden agendas in editing articles about Prem Rawat

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Information I have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs) Please remove this libellous material. The only sources for your so-called research are Elan Vital and one-reality -- the website that was sued by Marianne Bachers and in settlement of the same was required to remove all defamation material about her. Those are the only two such places you could have possibly done any research to gather the "information" you placed above that libels myself and other editors here using our names. But, here's website you can peruse if you're really interested in reporting about fairness: Marianne Bachers v DOES 1 TO 20,INCLUSIVE Cause of Action: DEFAMATION. Wiki's well-regarded editor, Jossi Fresco is named in that legal action. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I have not used any names, and therefore my posting is not libelous. I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) The posts by IsabellaW violate WP:No_personal_attacks as she attempts to associate editors here with unrelated people in an attempt to defame by association, and by linking to a site that attacks former followers of Rawat that is not WP:RS. Also, she makes no attempt to comment on the content of this article. Jossi, if you are reading this I hope you will remove Isabella's posts and give her an appropriate warning on her talk page. --John Brauns (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I have warned the user, but I have been asked at WP:AN/I not to refactor any comments from talk pages anymore. Maybe Jaen or others can use {{hat}} at the top of this thread, and {{hab}} at he bottom to collapse the thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Teachings section

Some text and sources for Sant Mat, from the article of the same name. (I have researched this subject quite in depth in the past)

The boundaries of the movement were likely not sectarian and were devoid of Brahmin concepts of caste and liturgy. The poet-sants expressed their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style in Hindi and other dialects such as Marathi. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value. They presented the idea that true religion was a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart".

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, the other portions that you tagged with {{cn}} are sourced to Galanter and Hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter seems to have gone missing as a footnoted source. Galanter is mentioned in the References section, but I'm not very sure which sentences he's a reference for. Could these sentences be indicated?

I caught up an error of something that indeed could be referenced to Hunt (if "early 80s" was removed, because then Hunt would not have been an appropriate source, he refers to Millennium '73 as the probable turning point, at least the start of it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Hunt is referring to the 1980's. BTW, Hunt is the most contemporary source of all sources (2003). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I read Hunt: he surmises "Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context.", where "this failure" refers to Millennium '73 in the previous paragraph. So you can't use Hunt to say "In the early 80s Rawat came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings" (it would be OR to assume that Hunt suggested that only after 10 years Rawat started to reflect on it: that is possible, but an OR extrapolation of a source). Nor can the provided Melton quote be used as a reference for the time assertion, as it doesn't give a time indication the way it is presented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter: It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Geaves: He is insistent that it is not the product of any one culture or the property of any religious tradition and that it can be practised by anyone. Consequently, Maharaji asserts that he is not teaching a religion and there are no particular rituals, sacred days, pilgrimages, sacred places, doctrines, scriptures or specific dress codes, dietary requirements or any other dimension associated with a religious lifestyle.

Foss & Larking: and to remain exclusively centered upon the only Truth, which lies within.

Hunt: The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter, just put him in. Page number reference would be welcome (and check whether I used the right book, and should not reference it to Levine).

Geaves: was in, is in, didn't change a word of the Geaves reference, although I think I conflated the Geaves reference containing a quote with the Geaves reference containing a completer book reference. The current text of the Geaves reference in the Teachings section is "He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques. The simple axiom, 'If you like it, practice it, if you don’t, try something else,' is applied on frequent occasions in his public discourses. Neither does Prem Rawat regard himself as an exemplary leader, a role often ascribed to religious founders." What you attribute to Geaves is in fact in footnote 93 attributed to Melton et. al.: "Rawat is insistent that it is not the product of any one culture or the property of any religious tradition and that it can be practiced by anyone. Consequently, Maharaji asserts that he is not teaching a religion and there are no particular rituals, sacred days, pilgrimages, sacred places, doctrines, scriptures or specific dress codes, dietary requirements or any other dimension associated with a religious lifestyle." [24] Geaves or Melton (or both)?

Foss and Larkin: as a reference for what?

Hunt is used as a reference in the teachings section each and every word you quote. Hunt is used 5 times as a reference in the Teachings section. Enough? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is Geaves, in a book edited by Partridge, which contains a preface by Melton (Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421. Hence the confusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter's text is in page 20 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"one hour of practice" can be sourced to this WP:SELFPUB source [25] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That page on the Keys website has no author name, or is it understood that such sayings on these pages all derive from Rawat directly? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The author is The Prem Rawat Foundation, as per the copyright on the home page:[26]. It can be attributed to the webiste? I will look for other sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So we can't use it for "Rawat advises students that for maximum benefit the techniques should be practised daily for at least one hour." It would be OR to suggest that Rawat is the only author of TPRF. I'd suggest to leave it out as we don't know who exactly suggests this (unless a more corroborative source turns up). --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation violation

Francis, you are breaching the 1RR probation. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Jossi#Re. "Drama" --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to [[User_talk:Francis_Schonken#1RR probation violation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, a bit less wikilawyering would do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, Francis. When others revert is "rv vandalims", or "rv not discussed", etc. But when you revert is (ec) still more even distribution of referenced text/references; note that there is no big change, only putting references where they belong, + indicating where they are lacking). Why would you call an obvious 1RR violation to be an edit conflict? Beats me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point, Jossi. His edit summaries are too long? I'm more concerned by the missing, cryptic or misleading edit summaries given by Janice Rowe, Momento, etc. "Too many changes to be able to follow them"? ie, I'm confused so I'm going to revert a bunch of edits? And that's just fine with you? Msalt (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring this to AN/I, but I am keeping this diff. I would appreciate it if you are more cautious given the probation, that was set up for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, Momento reverted the same text twice in 10 minutes. [27] and [28]. Is there a reason you have not warned him for 1RR? There certainly appears to be a double standard in your administration here. Msalt (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis has already reported this to [29]. In fact, I didn't revert twice, I removed material that Francis agreed was unsourced. Which, amazingly, Francis then reverted and then I used my one revert to remove the material.Momento (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Teachings Section

Now that I've read a bit more about Rawat, I find the teachings section a bit bland. It doesn't really capture what is unique about him, in my opinion, and so I'd like to suggest two major points that seem to be distinctive and exactly the kind of summary info a good encyclopedia article would contain. I have a bunch of sources, but at this point I'm more interested in working out a consensus summary that every one can agree on. I don't think there is any reason that this would need to be a point of contention. The points are:

1. It seems that a major innovation of Rawat was offering a direct sensory experience of transcendence as captured in the four elements of the Knowledge, as opposed to the more abstract transcendance offered by other religions and spiritual philosophies. A couple of quotes struck me along these lines -- one devotee told a writer “Our Knowledge is not a religion, but an experience.” And Rennie Davis quoted Rawat as saying "“Don’t believe me unless you have proof”.

This is not only a fascinating contrast with the other-worldliness of most religions (and answer to criticisms of them), but it goes a long way to explaining why this teaching would be so popular at that time in world history, a time when many were reclaiming direct experience over highly refined abstraction.

2. The concept of lila, which I understand to be "divine play" or "joking". It seems that many of the contradictions of Rawat that outsiders so quickly jumped on, were seen by many insiders as a form of lila, a joke that they were in on and the outsiders didn't get. This is a big part of what the Foss and Larkin article is about.

It seems to me that even a quick teaching section should include these, and that the article would be much richer and deeper yet NPOV. Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "innovation" was in bringing Raj Yoga, which had been honoured in India for centuries, to the west and giving it freely to non-Hindus. Rumiton (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The direct experience aspects is already covered in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. As for the concept of "lila" that was a remnant from Indian connotations that was referred to during the 70's. It is not part of Prem Rawat's teachings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Jossi you are trying to draw attention away from Rawat's past teachings. It WAS a part of Rawat's teachings in as much as he frequently spoke of 'Lila' in his satsangs. PatW (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lila means "dance" in Hindi. It is a reference from Hinduism to Krishna dancing and playing with the Gopis, the milkmaids who were Krishna's closest devotees. It is just another of the Indian ideas that Prem Rawat left behind when he internationalised things in about 1982... today of historic interest only. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have several sources on the importance of lila in Rawat's teaching, from the highest quality scholars and journalists. Do you have any sources that it is no longer used? Otherwise this would be OR. Msalt (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, you asked for the perspective of involved people, in other words, OR. It would be very unlikely that a scholar looking at Prem Rawat's work today would remark on what had disappeared. They would just describe what currently is. Lila is not. Rumiton (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I do welcome that perspective. However, I have also consistently said that that perspective can't be used directly in the article. We have several highly reliable sources saying that "lila" was a very important concept in the early 1970s, and none saying that it stopped. It seems like, to accurately capture Rawat's teaching, we should address this change, perhaps in the Westernization section if, as was said here, the exit of lila as a key concept is part of that development. But we do need a reliable source. Msalt (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the vanishing of the idea of "lila", that life is a play with the master, is kind of key. I never thought about it. Anyway, I doubt that we will find a source to tell us so. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree, Jossi, that the direct experience is a notable aspect of Rawat's teachings? In all good faith, I find it a unique and interesting aspect that belongs in a teaching section here. Do you have any objection to me attempting to reword the section to include it? Msalt (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Teachings of Prem Rawat, which is the main article on the subject. If needed, a mention about the direct experience aspects described by the sources availabe, could be used in the summary here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another notable fact is that Rawat has never charged people to learn the techniques. Hearing about Knowledge, materials to understand and prepare, and receiving the techniques are all free. Rawat receives no money from these activities and gave away the royalties to his talks to Elan Vital. People complain that followers have given him money, but it's a bit like eating a meal at a free restaurant where you can pay what you think it's worth or contribute to keep the place running for others.Momento (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a 3rd party source saying that there's no charge? I seem to recall reading something about compulsory tithes, though that may have been for people living in ashrams. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction here. The point I'm suggesting is a description of the teachings themselves. Whether DLM or Elan Vital charges for Knowledge is an administrative detail that is probably best discussed in connection with the various controversies over money, allegedly opulent lifestyle, etc. and not in the teachings section. Msalt (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article on the teachings, a summary of which resides here. As for the no charge for teachings, I think that it is an important distinction and could be covered in the teachings article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both points. It does belong in the teachings article but I don't think it belongs in the short summary of Rawat's teachings in this article. Rather, I think that here, it logically belongs with other discussions of him and money, whereever we put that (Reception?). Msalt (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposal is interesting, Msalt; it might add historical perspective. On the other hand, I understand Jossi's concern (if I have understood it correctly) that historical aspects should not outweigh his present message. Other views? Jayen466 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen. Unless I'm misreading him, I think Jossi made that point only about lila; as far as I can tell, Knowledge remains rooted in the same four direct experiences. Am I wrong? Msalt (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We used to have two article: Past teachings of Prem Rawat and Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Now the former redirects to Divine Light Mission, and the latter goes to this article. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have all teaching, past and current, in teachings of Prem Rawat. I'd be simple to have a section for each. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Both these should be redirected to Teachings of Prem Rawat, as the article covers these aspects. As for a source that the technioques are taught free of charge, we have self-published sources such as this, and this. I will check if I can find some secondary sources. Regarding the ashrams, people were asked to give their possessions on joining one, so tithes would not have applied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one: Guru Maharaj Ji's group does not charge for the courses or the teaching of the techniques of "knowledge." Stoner & Parker, All God's Children. p.10 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source for "Teachings":

In the Divine Light Mission, the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, they must gain knowledge, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.

The movement that originally started as the Divine Light Mission is now reformed in its beliefs and teachings. Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian religious concepts such as reincarnation or heaven. The emphasis is in present-tense experience of life in the here and now.

Maharaj ji teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life.

— Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. p.278-279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The same source can be used in addition to others for number of adherents, given: Outside of India, at the time of this writing [2001], Elan Vital claims seventy-five thousand followers in the rest of the world. p.279 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I moved the discussion of whether Rawat is divine to this section, where it fits more logically. Also, I am going to change the following line because it implies that scholars are endorsing the view that only Rawat can provide the keys to his meditation techniques, which is POV at best and certainly not what the scholars say:

"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques to which only he has the keys".

You could say something like "techniques to which he CLAIMS only he has the keys" but I think it's more encyclopedic just to describe the techniques. Hence

"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques (Light, Music, Nectar and Word)."

This is much closer to what the sources say. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit I describe in the preceding paragraphs got caught up in Janice Rowe's blind revert. I plan to reinstate it. Any discussion? To be honest, the text as it stands is a contentious, poorly sourced item under the terms of BLP, so I should probably not even wait, but I prefer to work with consensus. Msalt (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't fit there. What is the logic? The teachings are unrelated to these claims. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted several unrelated edits with a misleading edit summary. This looks quite a bit like edit-warring, especially since you removed the POV tag [[30]] from this article -- the subject of earlier edit warring -- without Talk comment or even an edit summary earlier today. Please self-revert and, if you continue to feel that this move of a paragraph is incorrect, revert only that single edit. Thank you.

As for your objection to moving the paragraph, please explain yourself. The paragraph in question is a discussion of whether Rawat claims divinity. Clearly that is an aspect of his spiritual teaching. Why do you think it better belongs in a section titled "Leaving India"? Msalt (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that whatever purported claims of divinity have been described, these are most definitively not part of PR's teachings. What makes you believe that it is? The Teachings section is a WP:SUMMARY of the main article Teachings of Prem Rawat, I do not see anything there that relates to the subject you want to include in that section.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of Teachings of Prem Rawat. While certainly that is a good article to inform the current section, it should stand on its own. Every major spiritual teacher is faced with the question of their divinity -- e.g. Jesus -- and their position on the issue is clearly part of their teachings. Rawat's answer to reporter's questions about divinity were all elements of his teachings -- the divine is in each of us, etc.

Why do you think that this paragraph belongs in a personal narrative of his teenage years titled "Leaving India"? If someone has a better location, perhaps reception, I'm all ears. (That was actually my first suggestion on the Talk page.) But it clearly does not belong in Leaving India. Msalt (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUMMARY. The "Teachings" section is a summary of Teachings of Prem Rawat. Saying that you are not editing that article, is not an excuse. If you want to expand that article, do so, and after that the summary can be tweaked to include new material. If you read the teachings article, there is already material about divinitu within, etc. Feel free to edit some of that stuff into the summary here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, very interesting and helpful. Given that, you're absolutely right, the paragraph shouldn't be moved into teaching until and unless it can be synchronized with the other article. However, it also clearly does not belong in "Leaving India." Unless anyone objects, I will go back to my original idea and move it into Reception. Msalt (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here's another idea. The "Westernization" section already contains a discussion about Rawat reducing the "Perfect Master" language with its deistic overtones. Would it be better to move the controversy over Rawat's deity (or lack thereof) to that section? These two sections really present two different viewpoints that might be better merged. The one currently in Leaving India seems to say "some said he claimed Godness, but he didn't really, but you can't stop those devotees, can you?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The Westernization section seems to be saying "OK, he was kind of Goddish in the Indian phase but dropped that during Westernization." (again, paraphrasing). Can we reconcile those and put them all in Westernization? I think that makes the most sense, now that I look at it. Msalt (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That may work, although I suppose how it will read. Care to try that "merge" here in talk first? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's a big change with a lot of subjective choices in it. Actually, I was hoping someone else might tackle it (here). Don't want to hog the conversation. Jayen? Msalt (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Will have a go. Will try to incorporate the van der Lans/Derks bit as well. Jayen466 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Msalt (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One of Momento's sudden burst of undiscussed edits inserted the phrase "taught to him by his guru" into the first sentence of this section. "Guru" is original research; the only source we have says his "father." Furthermore, even if you could show that Shri Hans had a guru relationship with his son at age 6, it is confusing to the reader to use that term instead of the plain meaning of "father". As we're saying that Shri Hans taught him Knowledge in these very words, the reader can easily pick up that meaning as appropriate. But if you say "guru", no reader could be expected to understand that to mean his father. I also fixed the placement and citations for that phrase. Msalt (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the phrase "collectively known as Knowledge" to that first sentence as well, to make it clear that the term refers to those meditation techniques. Otherwise, the reference to Knowledge with a capital K in the last paragraph of this section is confusing. Also, I'm fine with Momento's move of the teachings criticisms to this section, as long as that doesn't ruin it as a WP:SUMMARY per Jossi's comments, but s/he placed it in the middle of the narrative of the development of Rawat's teachings (ie "1) R started as this. 2) critics say.... 3) Then R changed to that". I'm going to move #2 after #3 to keep that narrative clear. Msalt (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Ji Maharaj was both Rawat's father and guru. To cover all angles, we could say "father and guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj". Anyone have a scholarly source to hand that states the SHJM was PR's spiritual mentor? I think there should be plenty. Jayen466 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me from reading the sources at hand that Hans was Prem's guru. He taught him knowledge, but this can be (and has been) portrayed as a father passing on the family's profession to his son. I have yet to see the word guru used to describe that relationship in print anywhere except this article and talk page, and I'm not comfortable adding it without reliable sources. Otherwise, it seems to be an OR claim of legitimacy for Rawat. Also, guru is a very loaded word, in some ways similar to "cult" in having negative connotations for some, and (unlike cult) very positive connotations for others. Mentor is a much more neutral word -- I have no trouble with that. But, aren't fathers expected to mentor their children? Msalt (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt: There is an overwhelming number of scholarly sources that describe Hans Ji Maharaj as Prem's guru. I can dig these if you want, bit some of these are already included in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The current order of teachings is illogical. The criticism of "lacking in intellectual content, and as emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect" needs to follow immediately after the description of Sant teaching because that is what the scholars are criticizing. Separating it with a comment about how Rawat's teaching has evolved implies that the criticism may refer to that.Momento (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true, Momento. I have Melton right in front of me ("Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults"). He discusses Sant teaching on p. 220 in his "Beliefs and Practices" section, but the "lacking in substance" comment comes two pages later under "Controversy", a section which does not mention Sant at all. The current order is very clear: 1) R started here 2) then he moved there. 3) the result has been criticized 4) practitioners describe it like this. You seem to be trying to make the argument that any criticism of Rawat's teaching is obsolete, because he has changed it since the criticisms. But the sources don't say that, and you can add it without it being OR or synthesis. Msalt (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it doesn't go - 1) R started here 2) then he moved there. 3) the result has been criticized 4) practitioners describe it like this. Kent's criticism is from 74, Premies Versus Sannyasins by Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks doesn't contain that criticism, Barret talks of DLM days. The other sources have no English translations. I have added Hunt to explain the 80s transition. So now the criticism belongs before the 80s.Momento (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP we should pay special attention to WP:RSUE - "use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of sufficient quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher". The non-English sources given are not suitable.Momento (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you are constructing an argument that the criticisms of Rawat are only applicable to his early teachings. This is not in any source we have, so it constitutes original research. The sources don't even say that the substance of his teachings changed, just that they were stripped of Indian referents. Furthermore, your argument about foreign language sources is overstated. The policy does not say at all they are unsuitable. I will look for additional English sources in any case.

You're right that the Van der Lans and Derks paper doesn't criticise his content. It probably got dislocated from its original location in the heavy editing of this article. It does however make the interesting point that pre- and post-1975 convertees to Rawat are very different groups. This might help add substance to the Westernization section. Msalt (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that if the criticisms are made in the 70s, they do refer to his earlier teachings. Generally made by Christian scholars who had no understanding of Sant methods.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an argument, alright, but it is YOUR argument. Only sources can make arguments, not editors. That's the point of WP:OR. Msalt (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (reinserted after deletion by other user)Msalt (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Convertees to Rawat"? lol! I am a Jew and remain a Jew... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec, @Momento:) Here you start to mix up things: language of a source does not relate to its reliability: for BLP there is no difference, for WP:V there's a double recommendation, again not presuming that a foreign language would be an indication relating to reliability, and even less that this part of the WP:V policy has greater or lesser importance for BLP's: (1) if the English source says the same and has comparable reliability as the foreign-language one, use the English source; (2) if after that the foreign-language one is still part of the picture, make sure English readers can understand, and all readers can check (in simple words: provide the quote you're relying on in the original language, and add a translation).

Re. (1): we're back at the problem that there is an insatiable hunger for additional sources proofing and re-proofing the same content for editors like Momento, for the instances where such editors don't like the content. This has to stop. If it doesn't, we keep the foreign-language sources too. Secondly, Momento's OR is that there is no criticism worth mentioning after the first half of the seventies. So, the Dutch sources are also needed, they provide info not provided by the English sources apparently (unless someone is hoaxing us).

Re. (2): we created /scholars with several translations, now checked by multiple eyes, and continuing to be available, and open for further checking. For instance Schnabel is available on-line now (in Dutch), so all can check whether the excerpts presented by Andries a year ago are correctly copied (you don't even need to understand Dutch for it). The translations can be checked, etc. Schnabel's credentials can be checked, etc. There is no BLP issue.

In short, "Since this is a BLP we should pay special attention to WP:RSUE" is rubbish (1) RSUE should always get proper attention, not more nor less than for non-BLP topics; (2) RSUE was given proper attention. That was my first involvement in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In not sure what your issue is Francis but since three out of four sources are in Dutch without translation and two do not mention the criticism they are supposed to support, we obviously have a problem. Let's concentrate on fixing the problem, not shooting the messenger.Momento (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added two more English sources. Francis, perhaps you could add english translations of the relevant quotes to the footnotes themselves? I think that would amply satisfy WP:RSUE. Momento, the fact that you only challenge sources for criticisms of Rawat does undermine your credibility on these points. Can anyone explain to me, for example, what this reference (currently #38, at the end of the Leaving India section) is?

^ Reporter at Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972: "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: 'Who are you?' 
Maharaj Ji: "... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people 
have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and, ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an 
interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will be interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but 
I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect 
or a religion. It's an open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive 
it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I 
am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, 
but I can claim I can show you God." "

What the heck kind of reference is "Reporter at Montrose, Colorado"? Can anyone fix this, or should we just delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we used to have:

• "According to Maharaj Ji, all evil should be attributed to the mind [...] indicat[ing] the same obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds [...] DLM’s concept of mind refers primarily to a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust." [31]
  • Attributed to: Lans, Jan van der and Dr. Frans Derks, Premies Versus Sannyasins in “Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements”, X/2 (June 1986).
  • In the mean while the article is on-line, and the link is given in the article: http://www.dci.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599:premies-versus-sannyasins&catid=163&Itemid=36

So, I don't know why the Van der Lans & Derks footnote was moved around in the article just now, and linked to a sentence where it is no reference for... [32] --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual content

I was pondering about the framing of "lack of intellectual content" as a criticism. Is it? If we are to mention these opinions, we ought to counterpoint them with the fact that Prem Rawat has always focused on an direct experience, a feeling, which he often refers as "very, very simple". Is that bad? Good? It does not matter. Rather than frame these opinions as criticism, these should be framed as opinions and attribute these opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some more information about the teachings, and fixed bias on the introduction. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Money

When it always touches me as somewhat gossipy, how much space in the article is given to the subject's apparent wealth, I wonder why the fact that he teaches free of charge, and always has, is nowhere mentioned. To my understanding it certainly bears more notability than all this discreetly invidious subtext about house and debts and such. I imagine that a serious reader might use WP with a wish to not get fed mostly superficial mainstream attitudes, no matter how extensively published. Could editors agree on mentioning and properly sourcing this item in the Teaching section?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find something.Momento (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lede

Janice has made a change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement. The criticism of Rawat's teachings for being - simplistic, intellectually unremarkable etc - need context. And that context is - he gives "an emphasis of individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma" (Hunt). I think this is an important point as all Sant guru's took the same approach.Momento (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, can we please get a better word than "sumptuous". I don't know where it came from but it sounds "old english".Momento (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly "old" English, more like Edwardian. It survives, if at all, in the expression "a sumptuous repast", meaning an elaborate meal. You are right, of course. It is a silly word. Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

re. "change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement": failed to see the improvement while, again, references were severed from what they were actually referencing, and text inserted not covered by these references. Also deformation of the text covered by the actual references. See also edit summary of my revert of the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So fix it, instead of just deleting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Barrett passage would seem to be – "the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best described as practical mysticism." See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. That reasonably accurately covers what Janice wrote. If we lose the Schnabel reference, it fits. Quoting the "intellectually quite unremarkable" without context feels a bit mean; it is not an outright put-down in the source (also on the /scholars subpage), more part of a description of different teaching styles. What the author is saying is that the attraction to Rawat, or his charisma, did not derive from the intellectual presentation or impressiveness of his teaching, but from other factors or sources; there is no value judgment attached to that in the source; Schnabel concludes, "they, by the way, both have their own audience and their own function." Jayen466 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I realise I've just inadvertently refuted myself; to the extent that Schnabel compares teaching styles, the Schnabel reference actually does fit with Janice's edit presenting the comments as comments about his teaching. I think I quite liked the flow of Janice's edit to the lede. Jayen466 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did say it wasn't perfect. I might try to come up with something.Momento (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence isn't right. Schnabel describes Rawat as "the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji". Barret comments on his teachings.Momento (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• His interpretation of the knowledge is an experience rather than an intellectualization of the deity. (Stoner & Parke, 1977)
• Peace is not necessary in the mind; it is necessary in the heart. The mind and intellect cannot capture peace. They have a different function. (Prem Rawat, 2008 [33]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Janice's edit to the lead was excellent, as it provided context. Francis' edit summary misses was rv last paragraph of intro. Don't know about Barret, but Schnabel wrote about the person, not the teachings. If that is the case, why are we referring to the teachings? If Schnabel wrote an opinion about the person in his Phd dissertation, is that opinion notable enough to be placed on the lead? Most certainly not. The scholarly opinion that is shared by scholars is that his teachings had nothing to do with intellect. I would strongly suggest to review that sentence and provide the necessary context. As it stands is misleading by missing the context.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraphs of Teachings section

I can see that Janice's additions to the teachings section were also deleted. Why? Where is the use of {{fact}} for material that may not be obviously sourced, Francis? That is not collaborative editing. Only contentious material needs to be removed without asking for references. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Text and sources to be re-added to Teachings section:

He is considered an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher. striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. Rawat claims that practicing Knowledge will allow the practitioner to experience self-understanding, calmness, peace and contentment. Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From Jossi's quote box above:

• Second and third sentence are still in the article (last paragraph of "Teachings" section), with two references each: is anything not quite in order with the references as they are now in the article?
• First sentence, only Ron Geaves as a reference: seems more like a Geaves opinion, than something Rawat is generally considered to be, so I'd be fine with:

  Ron Geaves considers Rawat to be an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher, striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge.

  Other thoughts?

General remark: Jossi you write "to be re-added to Teachings section": is that a suggestion where others can partake in whether or not we think this a good idea? If so, please use wording that is less a statement of fact like "to be re-added to Teachings section." I'm not yet convinced, convince me! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with attribution of text, if we do the same with all others. All others are also "opinions". We need to be consistent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to emphasise single opinion. For instance, if Van der Lans and Derks have an opinion in their book, which is not recurring in other sources, their name is mentioned. So either find other sources stating the same, or best to mention under the author's name imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions sourced to a single source could all be attributed. There are several in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept Geaves' articles as reliable sources, not at face value in any case. (I don't claim to be an expert). But he is a longtime devotee of Rawat, in fact one of the very first in the West. The two articles mentioned are published in obscure journals that none of our other sources are in; how much do we know about their reliability? And reading one of them "Globalisation, charisma, innovation and tradition", I see a pretty clear and strong POV and lots of opinion, but a dearth of sources and many factual errors. Pro-Rawat editors have held sources critical of Rawat on this page to extremely high standards; we need to hold pro-Rawat sources to those same standards. Msalt (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We are using Messer as a source, a sociologist that was a follower. We are using Dupertuis, a sociologist that was a follower. We are using Van der Lans, who was an evangelical protestant monk and a religious scholar. Ditto abour Kraneborg. Ditto about Melton. So, we are using as a source the Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester, who happens to be a follower. All these are valid, reputable, and verifiable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You, Momento and Rumiton have certainly argued that Van der Lans and Kranenborg should be scrutinized because of their faiths, and I think that's appropriate. Ditto the Larson encyclopedia. I certainly think the devotee writers should be scrutinized the same way. I don't have a side I want to win in this debate; I just want to see a neutral article.Especially when someone with a notable and undeclared biased is published only in a small, obscure journal, I think it's more than fair to question their objectivity, and to prefer sources without that bias, or to examine their work against a natural human tendency to favor their spiritual master. Dupertuis' article is full of ecstatic fawning over Rawat, dressed in a veneer of academic talk. I defy anyone to read it and tell me it's a level-headed objective scientific analysis. In law, sources like these are useful when they make statements against their interest, but discounted otherwise. Sounds like a good plan to me. Msalt (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You say you are not an expert, but you speak of "factual errors". Which ones, and on what basis you say that. Msalt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a pretty clear and strong POV and lots of opinion, but a dearth of sources Really? I have a copy of that paper. Below are the sources used for that paper: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources listed in Globalisation, charisma, innovation and tradition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Asad, Talal, 1993, Introduction to Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. *London: John Hopkins University Press. Barber, Ben, 1996, Jihad versus McWorld, New York: SUNY. Baumann, Zygmunt, 1997, Postmodernity and Its Discontents, Oxford: Polity Press. Baumann, Zygmunt, 1998, Globalization: the Human Consequences, Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumann, Zygmunt, 2001, Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World, Cambridge: Polity Press. Collier, Sophie, 1975, Soul Rush: An Odyssey of a Young Woman in the 70s, New York: William Morrow. Flood, Gavin, 1997, An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foss, Daniel and Ralph Larkin, 1978, “Worshipping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality Among the Followers of *Guru Maharaji,” Sociological Analysis 39.2. Geaves, RA, 2002, “From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Parampara (lineage)”, The 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22-24 March, to be published as Geaves, Ram, 2006, “From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)?” in Anna King, ed, 2006, Reflections on a Lineage (parampara) in Indian Religions: Renaissance and Renewal, London: Equinox. Geaves, RA, 2004a, “From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and beyond: An Exploration of change and adaptation”, Nova Religio Vol. 7:3 March, pp.45-62. Geaves, RA, 2004b, “Elan Vital” in Encyclopaedia of New Religions, Christopher Partridge, ed, Oxford: Lion Publishing, pp.201-202 Geaves, RA, 2005, “Forget transmitted memory: The de-traditionalized ‘religion’ of Prem Rawat’”, Religion and Society: Challenging Boundaries, 28th Conference of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion, Zagreb, 18-22 July. Gold, Daniel, 1987, The Lord as Guru: Hindu Sants in the Northern Indian Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffand, Paul, 2005, “Religious Authority: Scripture, Tradition, Charisma” in John Hinnells, ed, The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, London: Routledge, pp. Juergensmeyer, Mark, 1991, Radhasoami Reality: The Logic of a Modern Faith, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lyon, David, 2002, “‘Religion and Globalization” in Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World, Christopher Partridge, ed, Leicester: Intervarsity Press, p68. O’Dea, Thomas, 1978, “Sociological Dilemmas: Five Paradoxes of Institutionalisation” reproduced in Whitfield Foy, ed, Man’s Religious Quest, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp.298-314. Paine, Thomas, 1798, Rights of Man, London: Wordsworth Classics. Pilarzyk, Thomas, 1978, “The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory,” Review of Religious Research 20.1, pp.23-43. Price, Maeve, 1979, “Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization,” Sociological Review, 27(2), February, pp.279-296. Ramadan, Tariq, 2004, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Oxford: Blackwell. Rosenburg, Justin, 2000, The Follies of Globalization Theory, London: Verso. Short, John Rennie, 2001, Global Dimensions: Space, Place and the Contemporary World, London: Reaktion Books. Smart, Ninian, 1995, Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Smith, David, 2003, Hinduism and Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell Tomlinson, John, 1999, Globalization and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. Wilken, Robert, 1986, The Christians as the Romans saw them, New Haven: Yale University Press .

That is his bibliography, not his references. He had 14 footnotes in a long article; several were just his opinions, 4 quoted himself in other papers, roughly four quoted non-controversial points about the history of Sant Mat and Radhasaomi (sp?). I don't have it in front of me, but it's prett shaky. I will go through it for errors when I have more time. One right off hand -- he describes DLM being closed in the US, and EV being a separate organization.

I'm not saying he is unusable, but he has a clear bias, and in this paper does not conduct any research, and does not describe his own role clearly. Like many biased sources, I think he should be examined closely and taken with a grain of salt. For that matter, I would say the same thing about Foss and Larkin's article. I don't know of any anti-Rawat conflict of interest they have per se, but the tone of the "Absurdity" article betrays a clear anti-Rawat feeling that I think should cause us to pause before quoting it. Scholars are not prophets, and their words should not be treated as scripture the way it often is on this page. Msalt (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While you're pausing, how about this silliness - "Journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content"? Since when did journalists become experts on "intellectual content"? Momento (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section (continued)

Re. lifestyle epithet:

• Qualifications from first given source (Ruston Daily Leader),
  • (attributed to Rawat's mother, issued statement): despicable, nonspiritual
  • (attributed to Rawat's mother via sources close to Rajeshwari Devi): materialistic, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars [...]
• Qualification from second given source (Hunt 2003): opulent

First we had "sumptuous" to sum that up; Jayen just changed to "luxurious"; my choice would still be "sumptuous" if confined to a single word (while "luxurious" doesn't quite capture the despicable and nonspiritual from his mother's official statement). When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the mother's epithets notable for the lede? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course not" - as in "statement of fact", etc, etc, ? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course not", as an assessment grounded on understanding of what is notable for a lead of a Wikipedia article and what is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

His mother's assessment then seems quite relevant as "lead section" material to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lede should would be best if updated with the wording entered by Janice: Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect., sourced as per available sources, and followed by the "luxurious" lifestyle text. Or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jossi stop commandeering in "should be updated" style. It's all part of of your too forceful method of policing this page. I have my opinion on this issue, and don't voice it half as forceful as I think it: that is called wikiquette. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx. I've been thinking about Schnabel today, since I re-read the quotes we have from him on the /scholars#Schnabel 1982 page. I think we can do something with that in the Prem Rawat article, for instance the "Reception" section.

I'm not yet convinced by Janice's rewrite of the laste sentence of the Lede, and would anyway suggest improvements. Schnabel is, for instance, glued as a reference to something he didn't write. In that perspective I'd prefer to keep as is, unless we can find another compromise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just get rid of all the OR and quote Mata Ji directly? "Prem has been criticized, by his mother, as "non-spiritual," "materialistic" and "despicable." The "experience over intellect," doesn't quite capture the flavor, of the "teachings," either. "Praising direct experience of various bodily processes, which he refers to as 'God,' while, at the same time, demonizing the process of thinking" seems closer to what he's actually said. I'm sure relevant direct quotations are available online. Wowest (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata JI shouldn't be quoted at all. Rawat took legal action to escape her control in 1974 and in 1975 she made these remarks in India. She is a totally biased source. If there is any criticism of Rawat expressed in the lede, it can only be a summary of multiple, reliable sources, presented in context with balancing views.Momento (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji is an authoritative source to say the least, she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India. You're still confusing "I don't like" with Wikipedia's reliable source concept. Maybe also consider a reading of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Mata Ji, has the same status as an ex-wife. You need to read this - Neutrality and verifiability. A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article".Momento (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata JI's well known and obvious bias excludes her as per the above policy.Momento (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But Momento, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. There is a definite lack of balance in the article. Perhaps we should just add that is "well-known" that his mother despises him. Wowest (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento - your last point totally obfuscates the policy you refer to. This policy refers to the Wikipedia editor using words that more favorable or negative than is appropriate, not a source referred to in the article. You have attempted to apply this policy to the source referred to, not the Wikipedia editor. There is no requirement for the actual sources to be neutral; otherwise Wikipedia would have to remove every opinion referred to in an article.

Given that the status of the relationship of Rawat to his Mother is clearly described in the article, are you of the opinion that the way the reference has been described in the article is itself biased, regardless of any bias within the referred statement? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost got it - "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively... or given undue standing ...or be subject to other factors suggestive of bias". Clearer now?Momento (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"... leading an opulent lifestyle" would be fine by me, and is verbatim in Hunt. Hunt alone is IMO enough of a reference for this half of the sentence, the other one should go. Hunt describes what "critics have focused on"; this is notable for the lede. His mother's opinion is not, IMO, especially since she engaged in a bitter legal struggle with her son. On the other hand, we could expand the actual sentence covering the family split in the Coming of Age section as follows:

His marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother, who denounced him and returned to India with his two elder brothers.

NikWright2 had a more complete ref in his version that we could use to source the added "denounced him": Pilarzyk, Thomas Ibid.
"His mother claimed that Maharaj Ji, 'under the instigation of certain bad elements in the United States Divine Light Mission, has continuously disrespected my will by adopting a despicable, non-spiritual way of life.'" (Would have to look up what title ibid. actually stands for.) Any thoughts? Jayen466 23:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That must be from: Pilarzyk, Thomas, The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 23-43, who is citing wording from a press release issued by the mother's spokesperson when she returned to India for good after the rift. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji's criticism is of course notable; she was one of the leaders of the DLM at the time. Furthermore, it was a crucial controversy according to several of our sources, and the reasons are not hard to figure out. Prem Rawat was, obviously, breaking away from his family as he came of age. Devotees in America were strongly encouraged, if not outright required, to be celibate, vegetarian, and avoid alcohol and drugs. She charged that Rawat was eating meat, drinking and getting married, which can't have been happy news to many devotees. And I have never seen any source that denied any of these charges. We have many sources showing that, at this exact time, DLM lost half of its membership. Of course it belongs in the lead. Msalt (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Mata Ji became a critic of her son after apparently telling everyone he was a divine incarnation is notable. Details of her unhappiness are not; she clearly falls into the ex-spouse or disaffected family member category. Incidentally, in India establishing ashrams is considered philanthropic work, and they are pointed to with pride. But as I have tried to say before, the ashram rules were for those who wanted to live that way, not for all. Everyone in my ashram knew Prem Rawat was not an ashram premie, and when he got married the response was one of delight, except for one or two of the women who had rather seen themselves in that role. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the family split is important enough to be mentioned in the lede. But just like the split and what his mother said are not part of the "Teachings" or "Reception" section in the main article, they should not be part of the micro summary of criticism at the end of the lede. I'd rather see a brief mention of the split at the appropriate place in the chronology of the lede. Jayen466 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just need to point out for a second the absurdity of the arguments by Rumiton and Momento that Mata Ji was "biased", "a bitter family member", etc. and so is not a reliable source. She's not a source -- she's a key player in these events and her comments are notable. It doesn't even matter that she, Rawat and his brothers are related, ultimately. Our most reliable sources show that they controlled DLM together from 1966 until the court case was settled. They in effect formed a board of directors of the Maharaji movement, and split among public recriminations. And the details of her criticism are quite important. DLM came out of a generally ascetic tradition of Indian religion; scholars call it "renunciate", and Shri Hans fit into that. It was not generally clear from 1966 to 1973 where Prem Rawat stood on that, and after all he was a boy at first. As he came of age, coincident with his Westernization but starting a bit earlier, he chose to move away from a renunciate lifestyle, which is a huge development, esp. with his followers leading a renunciate life. Even outside of the ashrams, DLM was famous for cleaning up drug casualties, which is what all those studies in Downton about improving followers lives are about. So her charges against Prem Rawat -- which no one here is even trying to deny -- of drinkin alcohol, eating meat and becoming sexual are a crucial development. And that's why he lost half of the American DLM membership, and much higher percentage of the Indian following.

Perhaps there is some way to summarize his western choices, but I doubt it would save many words. No one objected to discussing a break with his mother over getting married, in the lede; "eating meat and drinkin alcohol" adds 5 words. Msalt (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about how renunciate this lifestyle was; at the risk of pointing out the obvious, his father, who founded DLM, was sexually active. Jayen466 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sri Hans was not a renunciate, but a householder. He married twice and had four children. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji, was a staunch Hindu, which Sri Hans was not... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. That kind of makes my point though; Mata Ji, one of the acknowledged leaders of DLM, favored a renunciate lifestyle (outside of marriage obviously), and as he grew Rawat chose otherwise. When they split, she denounced exactly that decision, and half of the American DLM quit. Seems extremely notable to me. Was Shri Hans vegetarian and teetotal?

Also, isn't it a violation of wikiettiquette to insert comments in the middle of someone else's comments? I don't think I've ever seen that done before. Is it alright if I move these four comments to the end of my initial comment? Msalt (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Msalt, violation indeed, but entirely unintentional. We do seem to write a lot here, sometimes my eyesight gets blurred. I have now reattached the end of your comment to its rightful beginning (I hope). Jayen466 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Mataji, it still does not quite make your point since, as a wife and mother, she was not a renunciate either. I think Shri Hans was unconventional; his accepting pupils of all castes was also unorthodox. I believe there would have been every expectation of Rawat to become a householder like his father. Still, marrying an American at sixteen would not have fitted those expectations. As for his father's vegetarianism, I don't know. His teaching incorporated Sikh elements; Sikhs are not required to be vegetarians. Jayen466 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Francis, it is incorrect to say that she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India. I would be surprised if she took anyone at all with her. The ebullient, spontaneous, clear-thinking and funny Maharaji, or his dour, Hindu Mum? It was a no-contest. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India", I didn't mean that litterally, of course, as if she had packed a few million adherents in her bags when flying to India. That's why I said "adherence", not "adherents". Indian DLM, led by her, and shortly afterwards Satpal, only lost support of Western DLM adherents, and (probably) a part of the Indian DLM (sources in Prem Rawat article). As the bulk of DLM supporters lived in India, she led a substantial organisation there, and I'm not going to nit-pick over whether she had the bulk or the smaller part of the 6 or 7 million original DLM adherents behind her. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, re "sumptuous", you had suggested "opulent" earlier, and I said above that was fine by me. I didn't hear anyone vigorously objecting, so there might be a possible consensus word there that we could all live with, especially since it is also used in the source. How about it? Jayen466 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Above I wrote:

When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources.

"opulent" without "materialistic" wouldn't do for me, since we're summarizing two sources here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "outrageously extravagant?" How about mentioning the gold toilet? How about mentioning the ashram premies wearing rags?Wowest (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent. Unless someone provides proper sources I will have to remove the sentence. In any case, the criticism of Rawat's teachings and his lifestyle are so minor, they don't belong in the Lede. The teachings criticism by Christian scholars and "journalists" belongs in teachings. And lifestyle is covered else where.Momento (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "I've already said that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent", true, neither of them necessarily includes possible teachings to a private audience. Schnabel and Kent probably rather referred to what Rawat said in public, and/or otherwise published for the public at large.

Re. "Unless someone provides proper sources I will have to remove the sentence" - I preferred to remove the disparity between the sentence and the sources.

Re. "In any case, the criticism of Rawat's teachings and his lifestyle are so minor, they don't belong in the Lede" – I haven't seen a reliable source contending that criticisms to Rawat's teachings and lifestyle are "minor", could you provide such source?

Re. "The teachings criticism by Christian scholars and "journalists" belongs in teachings", more or less the line of thought we've been following lately; Schnabel and Kent rather belong in "Reception" imho.

In general, the lead section is a summary of a summary (the body of the article being a tertiary source summary, the lead a summary of that summary). The criticism, at least its two most essential points, is as yet not overrepresented in the lead section imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. I have removed the unsourced sentence.Momento (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Francis's insertion of "unsourced contentious material" because he has failed to provide sources that support the summary. According to BLP policy, reverting unsourced material in a BLP is exempted from the revert policy. BLP policy says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, The three-revert (or one revert rule) rule does not apply to such removals".Momento (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread what I wrote. Please self-revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood exactly what you wrote. You wrote, that my conclusion that neither Schnabel or Kent referred to Rawat's teaching was "True".Momento (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I said "I preferred to remove the disparity between the sentence and the sources", which indeed I had done: [34] – there was no BLP in the sentence you removed twice [35] [36]

Please .... No need to do this. I suggest restoring Janice's wording, as supported by Jaen as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Janice's wording was a step backwards, and don't agree to it. As is Momento's removal of the sentence he didn't like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I would rather do something else but Wiki policy says I "should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". I have queried it, Francis has admitted it, it has to go.Momento (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Francis has admitted it" – I did no such thing. Where do you get this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. I said "that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent" and you said ", true, neither of them necessarily includes possible teachings to a private audience. Schnabel and Kent probably rather referred to what Rawat said in public, and/or otherwise published for the public at large". That's it Francis, over and out, using weasel words like "possible" and "probably" can't disguise the fact that Schnabel and Kent are not the source for your unverified, unsourced OR. Momento (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See above: "teachings" was no longer in the phrase you removed. Please leave your aggresive tone ("over and out" and the like) out of this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Francis, I noted your OR.Momento (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARC? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Hunt says that Rawat "does not personally eschew material possessions". Are you concerned that I used the word "because" as a bridge? If so I will change it to "Rawat does not personally reject material possessions and he has been criticized by some for leading an opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DLM in the lead

Re the lead, I just read this page without knowing the subject, and found it odd that the lead doesn't mention the Divine Light Mission at all, when it seems to be a key topic in the body of the article. I don't want to join in editing here since it seems quite hotly debated, but purely to provide context, how about adding He was formerly the leader of the Divine Light Mission. to the end of the first paragraph? From what I've read here thats (hopefully) an uncontentious statement. --Bazzargh (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bazzargh, I agree. I and to a lesser extent Sylviecn, have argued to include the DLM in the lead over and over. Jossi opposed mentioning the DLM in the lead and even accused me of disruption for re-opening the discussion about this on the talk. Andries (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I attempt to summarize some of the facts here, so that we can decide which of these can go in the lead section (as always: forgive any potential errors, which I tried to avoid, the wiki system allows to correct them easily):

• DLM was founded in India by Rawat's father (1960);
• A DLM organisation was founded in the US by Rawat's close supporters, defined as a church according to US law (1971), for a period of time having its headquarters at the same location (or close to it?) as where Rawat lived;
• That organisation was reformed on Rawat's instigation in the early 1980s, including a formal name change to Elan Vital (1983). Rawat became less involved in the organisation (or how should one describe this? I also don't know whether this should be qualified as over time, or whether a pivotal date could be given).
• In 2001 a new organisation was founded, this time by Rawat himself: TPRF.

There are other details (not in the article, so no lead section material I suppose), for instance there was also Visions International (distributor of promotional material) and/or other formally separate organisations; and for obvious reasons the name DLM wasn't used by Rawat's supporters in India after the family schism, leading to DUO as the name of the Indian Rawat-oriented group, later renamed to Raj Vidya Kender. Also other countries had DLM/Elan Vital/... organisations set up in in accordance with applicable local law.

Currently only #4 is mentioned in the lead section; #1 probably is not necessary in the lead section, but I'd favour some info on #2 and #3 being included in the lead. Seems more notable than the names of the four cities he first visited in the West and some other detail now given in the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

DLM was a part of Rawat's life for 6 years in India but I don't think he was ever legally in charge. And DLM existed for 10 years in the US and Elan Vital has been in existence for 25 years and it isn't mentioned. You can 't put everything in the Lede if you want it to read properly and conform to WIKI guidelines.Momento (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, we have been thru this, so many times and it will be clear that I find your arguments completely unconvincing. Rawat had his 15 minutes of fame while the DLM existed. It is like arguing that an article about Jimmy Carter should not mention in the lead that he was the president of the USA because that was so long ago. Scholarly sources that do not mention Elan Vital can be found easily. In contrast, scholarly sources that do not mention the Divine Light Mission are difficult to find. Andries (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)