Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Semi-quote from Aldridge

Original quotation from Alridge, Alan — Religion in the Contemporary World (2007) — p.59:

• Prem Rawat claims to offer practical methods by which anyone can achieve spiritual tranquillity. Originally he aspired to bring about world peace but now, he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society

Wikitext:

• He is said to offer practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone; originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now his focus is on the needs of individuals, which according to him take priority over societal demands.

Why are we adding this to the intro? We have a whole section, indeed a whole article, on the subject's teachings. The intro should merely summarize the material found elsewhere. Aldridge's assertions are already covered in the article. I don't see any discussion of this. Furthermore, the text is too close to the original and is on the brink of plagiarism. If we want this material then we should either quote it verbatim or, even better, rewrite it entirely. In addition, the text changes "claims to" to "is said to", a key difference.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have screwed up the markup, now giving an error, and I don't know how to fix it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#Teachings Pergamino (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your edit so that we can discuss this and achieve consensus.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do I need to undo it? Can it be discussed without you undoing it again and again? Basically, the sentence summarizes the fact that the guru started with a mission to bring about world peace, and now his mission is to bring spiritual tranquility to individuals. No big deal if it can be rewritten (if you think it's needed). Pergamino (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my editing. I moved and rewrote your addition once. It isn't necessary for the intro, which is a brief overview of the subject's life. Furthermore, it's poorly written.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted it first saying it was plagiarism. I obliged and paraphrased it. You then rewrote it again and moved it elsewhere with an error. So I added it back without the error, using your re-write. So, if it is poorly written, why do you blame me? Pergamino (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the version I re-wrote, which is this:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.[1]

I don't understand why you restored your faulty draft to the intro, and I don't see any explanation from you. Active editors on this article have spent countless hours drafting the intro and finding consensus. This bit doesn't add anything important and I don't see any other editors agreeing to it.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I put what you wrote back: "He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society". But that is not what Aldrgide says. Pergamino (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it does. Pergamino (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That means that we have the same text in the article twice - once in the teachings section, where it might belong, and once in the introduction, where it's not necessary. Unless there's a consensus to include it in the intro too I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Will's right on this one. Please remove it. Msalt (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK: Deleted the duplicate. Pergamino (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to the teachings section because there's been no explanation for why it's in the intro, which should be kept short.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I explained why: Basically, the sentence summarizes the fact that the guru started with a mission to bring about world peace, and now his mission is to bring spiritual tranquility to individuals. It is important information and a summary. Pergamino (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that then, and leave the details for the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Rumiton's point below (I've split the thread): I'd guess that Aldridge is using "spiritual tranquillity" as a synonym for "inner peace".   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt Aldridge is doing just that, but the wording right now asserts that, "He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone." It is saying that Prem Rawat uses this phrase, which no other source attributes to him. I believe it has no place here. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rawat's marriage and the family schism

(I inserted this new section head to reflect the new subject) Msalt (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

" married a Western woman which divided his family and the movement" reads as if the woman or the marriage was the cause of the schism/split, but that that was not really the case and it is unfair to the woman to put it that way. Pergamino (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources that do indeed identify the marriage as the cause of the family split, from which the full blown religious 'schism' developed. I haven't checked the footnotes as they are currently given and an additional source may be needed if the text re: the marriage is kept. If other causes of the family split are to be quoted as well as, or instead of the marriage then we need to be clear what sources support that. Whatever the case, the family split was an important development and should be recorded in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way it reads is strange and inaccurate, as if the woman was the cause of the schism. It can be solved by saying "...In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family.[7][8] After a subsequent split in the movement Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active ..." Pergamino (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want precision then the solution you suggest will not achieve it. Somewhere in the discussion archives there'a a long discussion about the awarding of emancipated minor status. My recollection is that there was a clear argument that California does not have any legal provision to grant emancipated minor status directly, rather Rawat became emancipated by dint of being married and it was permission to marry that was granted by a Judge, not emancipated status. I haven't got the text of the [7] and [8] references available - someone should check what they actually say, but my preference would be to lose the mention of emancipated minor (is this from Cagan ?) and simply say "In 1973, and in the absence of his mother who was still in India, Prem Rawat was allowed to get married at age 16 with permission from a California Judge." There are other problems with this paragraph, and without resolving the disambiguation of the conflation of Divine Light Mission as a single 'religion', as a single organisation (DSP) and as multiple national organisations, describing the schism is pretty problematic. My feeling was that it's easier to sort the disambiguation out on the DLM page than here - however the issues are the same, though editors need to be geared up for dealing with what references actually say, not what they might be assumed to say based on the existing text. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Three points: First, the marriage and emanicpation occurred in Colorado. Second, the judge granted permission to marry, and the marriage automatically led to the emancipation. (That is, he needed either the judge's permission or his parent's because he was not yet an adult. Either way, he would have become emanicipated upon marriage.) We discussed this in detail last year and got an opinion from a Colorado lawyer. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_37#Emancipated_minor. Third, the marriage is described as a one of the main causes of the split by a number of sources. I don't think there's any that posit an unrelated cause.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with the sourcing - but neither Miller nor Hunt seem to mention the split at all. A contemporary news account says:

• The guru's mother renounced him Tuesday as head of the mission, which his father founded 14 years ago. She objects to his life in the U.S. where he is married to his 26-year-old secretary and is a father.

Another says: The mother renounced Maharaj Ji in April, charging he had become a playboy after moving to the United States in 1973. She was incensed by his marriage to his American secretary eight years older than he is. The couple has a three month-old daughter.

And another: The guru's reputation has suffered, in recent months. His mother rebuked him for becoming a "playboy," accusing the Most Perfect Master of living a life of luxury', of eating meat and consuming alcohol — habits that are eschewed by most Indian holy men. His mother also disapproved of Maharaj Ji's marriage to his American secretary, and she ultimately declared the guru's older brother as head of the mission in India. That dispute hasn't been resolved.

Another: The Divine Light Mission has taken a lower profile and worked out its internal problems - particularly the controversy surrounding Maharaj Ji's marriage to the former Maralyn Johnson in 1974, which divided his family and split the organization in India. ... Officials said that the reason for the division were cultural - Indian custom frowns on marriages to westerners - and that the marriage has had no negative impact on followers in the United States.

TIME magazine wrote in 1978: In 1975 his mother, Mataji, disapproving of his playboy ways and his marriage to an airline stewardess, deposed him in favor of his brother.

Rudin & Rudin write:

• Further bad publicity ensued when Maharaj Ji married his secretary, former airline stewardess Marolyn Lois Johnson, in 1974. The guru's mother was so upset over the marriage and her son's opulent life-style that she disowned him and designated one of his older brothers to take over the Mission. Maharaj Ji fought his brother in courts in India and they finally agreed that he would retain control of the United States Mission while his mother and brother headed the operation in India.

Among scholars we have Saliba, who says:

• His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. The devotees counteract this by depicting him, his wife and children as a kind of holy family, an example of what lies in store for many premies. And again, the rift with his mother and brothers in 1975, a rift which remains unhealed, has caused no crisis of faith in his devotees outside India. The conflict is explained by stating that the Guru's mother and brothers never really quite understood the satguru.

Derks and vanderLans write:

• However, in 1975 there was a schism within the movement. Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement's leader. The American and European adherents did not accept his dismissal and remained faithful to him. The movement split up into an Eastern and Western branch.

Geaves

• By 1974, the movement had experienced a number of crises resulting from the marriage of Prem Rawat to Marolyn Johnson, a Californian follower; the financial crisis created by the failure to fill the Houston astrodome and the disillusionment of American followers, whose millennialism had always been stronger than in Europe or Britain, when their expectations of a messianic event were not fulfilled. The marriage was to prove more significant, as it caused a deep rift in Prem Rawat's family, angered that he had not followed Indian custom, and the loss of many trusted followers inherited from the time of Prem Rawat's father.

But for the "emancipation" I don't see sources that indicate it was important. He never took legal control over the DLM and there's no evidence that he held title to any of the properties he used so the effect of being emancipated isn't clear. We can probably leave it out of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Current issues?

The case just closed with two editors banned from further participation for one year. With that done, are there any outstanding issues with this article that anyone thinks need to be addressed? Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many issues with this and other articles in this topic, but there's no rush to make changes. The last mediation ended with a long list of unresolved issues, so that would be an obvious place to start. The ArbCom advised seeking mediation and that might be the best framework for resolving the outstanding issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The social implications of the Guru's appearance in the U.S. during the self-destruction of the Nixon administration have been omitted from the article. Rev. Sun Myung Moon appeared at about the same time. The former anti-cult organization, Citizens Freedom Foundation, labeled Divine Light Mission as one of the "big four" cults, along with Moon's Unification Church, Scientology and ISKCON. Former SDS leader Rennie Davis was a prominent premie, and he spoke all over the United States during 1973, predicting that the Houston Astrodome, with 144,000 devotees inside, would be whisked off the planet by a giant mothership as an earthquake destroyed New York City along a newly discovered earthquake fault. I was there. I "meditated," and, of course, I believed every word Rennie spoke. The harmfulness of most of the four meditation techniques, as taught by the guru's "mahatmas," is not mentioned. The apparent link to Radha Soami, another group of organizations with devotees who engage in criminal or unethical near-criminal activities to raise money for their guru, and which apparently teach the same four "meditation" techniques, is not mentioned. The guru inherited a nominal religion, which should probably be regarded as a "scam," and that is not his fault. At some point in time, however, he should be held accountable for continuing to propagate the biggest lies, as "this meditation is not self-hypnosis," "the mind is demonic," "constantly meditate," "leave no room in your mind for doubt,""the guru is Greater than God," and "it is appropriate to give him all of your money." The practice of kissing the guru's feet, now done in private, is not mentioned. The fact that a lot of opinions about the guru are negative does not make them defamatory, particularly if they happen to be true and provable.Wowest (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll participate, both in mediation and in talk page discussions. I see some issues which are probably minor, some which are major, and some which may not be a good idea. Like with any topic, let's let the sources guide us. We have a wealth of reliable sources on this topic and we should be sure we're properly summarizing what they're saying. In the past, some of the most intractable disputes have been over which sources (and which parts of sources) are suitable. Hopefully, those disputes can now be settled and we can move forward more peacefully.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I have this page on my watchlist so as soon as the new mediation opens I'll try to participate in the discussions. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also offer to help out when the mediation opens. As per the previous mediation my contributions would be limited as I'm not a Prem Rawat expert and haven't done the intensive research of other editors. However, given my limited expertise I'm happy to make some suggestions and help with structure and balance, etc.--Savlonn (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish you all the best of luck in future attempts at mediation, as well as talk page discussion and consensus building to help make this article stable, reliable, and accurate, and hope that any further attempt at mediation will be more helpful than the last mediation that I conducted. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also able to offer help within the limits of available time and expertise. Please see my additional comments about the lede. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How many still needed?

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal/talk
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal nr2
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal nr2/talk
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Comments
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Finch
• Talk:Prem Rawat/First person accounts
• Talk:Prem Rawat/GA1
• Talk:Prem Rawat/GA Review March 07
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Heller comment
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle/chronological
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Observations of scholars
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Probation
• Talk:Prem Rawat/References
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Teachings
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Teachings (draft)
• Talk:Prem Rawat/WIGMJ
• Talk:Prem Rawat/criticism
• Talk:Prem Rawat/journalists
• Talk:Prem Rawat/lead
• Talk:Prem Rawat/mahatmas
• Talk:Prem Rawat/probation notice
• Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars
• Talk:Prem Rawat/temp1

Those are mostly either drafting pages or lists of sources. The drafting pages may have some authorship info because some of those drafts were copied into the mainspace. The sources are very convenient. Is there any urgency in deleting them? (I went ahead and deleted a couple thathad already been blanked some time ago.)   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No urgency to delete at all. I had created the criticism one a while back and was wondering if it was still useful, then i noticed all the others. I just pasted them here to remind others that they existed. David D. (Talk) 12:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've referred to quite a few of these from time to time. I think they are useful. Jayen466 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Wanted to say thank you to all who "fought the good fight." Watching what happened here led to a huge loss of faith in wiki for me, which is now restored. Peace, Sethie (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Added {{No more links}} to External links sect. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Durga Ji

• Time, One Lord too Many, Apr 28. 1975 [2]
  • Then last year the guru wed his secretary, Marolyn Johnson, a non-Hindu former airline stewardess, and declared her to be the incarnation of the ten-armed, tiger-riding goddess Durga.
• Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus. 1987 First Edition by Vikas Publishing House in 1977 Revised Edition
  • The cracks within the "divine family" became impossible to cement after Balyogeshwar issued directives that the photographs of his mother were to be removed from all the centres since she was no longer divine, and in their place were to be put the photographs of his wife who was "the incarnation of the goddess Durga."
• Price (1979)
  • In May 1974, Maharaj Ji married an American girl, Marolyn Johnson (now called Durga Ji), in direct defiance of his mother's wishes and the event shook the mission to its foundations.
• Melton J. Gordon Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York/London: Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5, pp. 141-145
  • Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger.
• Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson - page 150
  • He pronounced her the incarnation of the ten-armed, tiger-riding goddess, Durga. Whenthe new bride refused her mother-in-law access to their Malibu estate, that was the last straw.
• Cults: A Reference Handbook by James R. Lewis - Page 122
  • Mataji ... disapproved of his lifestyle and of his marriage to his secretary, Marolyn Johnson, whom he declared to be the incarnation of the goddess Durga.
• Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, Zondervan 2006
  • The popularity did not last, not even with the guru's mother, Mata Ji. Besides mounting debts and accusations of smuggling, Maharaj Ji married an airline stewardess in 1974, pronouncing her a goddess. When Mata Ji arrived in Malibu to see her son, his new bride did not allow her to visit his estate. Enraged, Mata Ji publicly denounced her son as being a "drunken, carousing, meat eater."
• "Guru Maharaj Ji", Biography Resource Center, Thomson Gale, 2007
  • Then in 1974, Maharaj married his 24-year-old secretary, whom he described as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga. [......]
• Randi, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural [3]
  • In 1974 Maharaj Ji married his secretary Marolyn Lois Johnson, who he had discovered was the reincarnation of the ten-armed, tiger riding goddess Durga.
• A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, And Movements by Linda Edwards - Page 278
  • Maharaj Ji had claimed that she was the incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga.

Pergamino found a new source which includes a clear description of Rawat's naming his wife "Durga Ji". Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5. Google scan We previously added that information to Divine Light Mission, but it is even more relevant here. Unless there's an objection based in policy I'll add a mention of it here too.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

On the very same page (278) the author says: "Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian concepts such as reincarnation or heaven." So the alleged statement about Durga Ji being an incarnation of a goddess, which the author puts into Rawat's mouth a few lines above, should be regarded critically. She just received a new name, without further religious implications, which seems to be a common practice in Hindu India. No objection to mentioning the traditional re-naming, if it is considered noteworthy, but abstain from theoretical theological insinuations.Rainer P. (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're saying that the source is unreliable or not. "Incarnation" of a goddes is a very different concept from "reincarnation" of a human, so that is irrelevant. Elan Vital happened later too, so whatever that group believed in the 1980s or 1990s doesn't determine what Prem Rawat did in 1974. I'm not suggesting that we insinuate anything. I'm just suggesting reporting what the scholar writes, that Prem Rawat claimed Johnson was the incarnation of Durga.   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will, if all that matters to you is to stress this dazzling, but dubious „incarnation“-bit, I will have to amend the text insofar, as this whole incarnation thing is completely at variance to Rawat’s consistent message and teachings to begin with, and find sources for that, causing me unnecessary work. It is an important point, considering the rather anti-esoteric character of his teachings. But it would not really make the article any better or more concise. Your author would not be the first and only one who gave in to cheap shots of cliché at the expense of research concerning our subject, as even you might suspect sometimes after all the discussion that has gone down here. Why not just let it be? These last few weeks were so nice and quiet, it just could'nt last…--Rainer P. (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We're here to report important aspects of the subject's life. A recent scholarly book contains a short biography of the subject, much shorter than this one, yet it still contains this detail, as do other short biographies. Is this in variance to his other teachings? I don't know, I've never seen a reliable source which says that. I'm not sure what "amendments" would be required. Could you explain?   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I though I had just explained? Again: The highly characteristic trait of Rawat's teachings is their independence from Indian or any other tradition. This incarnation bit would link him erroneously to exactly to that background. Even your scholar acknowledged that indirectly. Maybe she was not aware of the contradiction, it is not an in-depth study after all. We have better sources to support this point (the recent Geaves-article!). So recurring to alleged Hinduistic beliefs in this article would mean a loss of substance. What is so hard to understand? A lot of people have heard Rawat say a lot of things, but never has anybody heard him say: Marolyn is an incarnation of the goddess Durga. All this spook vanished anyway after the family rift.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say "erroneously"? I don't see an argument that this book is not a reliable source, or that the other sources in which it appears are also unreliable. While Rawat may have dropped "Indian trappings" later in life, this assertion concerns 1974 which is before he had made those choices so far as I'm aware. The same assertion also appears in Melton 1986, Price, Larson, and Mangalwadi. So again, unless there's evidence that all the sources are unreliable I'm going to go ahead and add this as relevant to the subject's life. If we have another reliable source which gives a different view we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Linda Edwards says Maharaj Ji had claimed that she was the incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga. Press reports of the day also said his mother disapproved of his lifestyle, ... She fairly enough admits she is drawing on press reports. There is an important difference between: (this person) embodies the virtues or attributes of a goddess for me - like: you are my Venus - and claiming: you actually are Venus, and even that has a romantic connotation at a wedding and should not be weighed ex cathedra (BTW the virtue of the goddess Durga is a.o. to fight demons - hope she succeeds...). I trust the press to wallow in this type of "information" and blur the fine lines. Cagan, who has thoroughly researched the Rawat family affairs, mentions nothing like that. Geaves, who is really scholarly in his papers (you haven’t read his article in Journal of Contemporary Religion 2009/1, have you?) is very elaborate on Rawat’s attitude towards tradition. As the matter regards to content, we should be careful here. There is no agreement. So before you dash ahead, let’s garner some other editors’ opinion on this point. I , for one, suggest you perhaps mention the re-naming alright, and the general Hindu tradition behind it, but be encyclopedically restrictive about this tickling goddess thingy.Rainer P. (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The press reports are concerning his mother, which isn't what we're discussing here. This isn't a journalist, but rather a scholar, just like Melton and Price. Cagan is not a reliable source. Geaves is a follower with an agenda, but we can add anything he has on the topic too. I'm not proposing anything more than what is in the sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted above a set of nine referencs for the "Durga" matter. I think that they are sufficient to show that this matter was verifiable and noteworthy.   Will Beback  talk  05:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All these authors obviously feed on the same sensationalistic press report (the somewhat hysterical Time article?), and one copies from the other, except Price and Melton, who keep it reasonable and rather support my suggestion, don't they. I don't see this goddess bit to be "noteworthy and verifiable", but I see my efforts are lost on you, and we shall please wait for other editors opinion. Do you really think, Rawat discovered the ten-armed goddess (Randi, one of your "scholars")? And who says, Geaves has an agenda? He is by far the most knowledgeable and scholarly figure of them all, concerning the Rawat saga. Being an insider makes his judgement even more relevant. And Cagan is systematically underrated here, but even then there has been an agreement to accept her authority at least on family matters. Are you possibly cherry-picking? Quoting entertainments like Time and Randi while ignoring valuable sources?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a standard part of the story of Prem Rawat, the story we're here to tell. We don't need to devote excessive space to it. Just something like "He renamed his bride 'Durga Ji', and reportedly said that she was an incarnation of Durga, a Hindu goddess." That's "due weight", given the sources.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends, on whether only Time said that or Rawat said that. If only Time said it, we should omit it.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the sources above represent a span of 32 years. Nine Ten sources across thirty-two years. The sources include mainstream scholars like Melton and Lewis, and mainstream news organizations like Time and Thomson Gale. It'd be an omission to leave out something so widely reported in such reliable sources, something connected to a highly significant internal rift. It's relevant and well-sourced. The formulation I've suggested is due weight.  Will Beback  talk  07:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P's efforts are not lost on me. There seems to be general agreement that the wife was re-named per Hindu tradition. The claim that Rawat actually said his wife was a goddess incarnate appears to have originated from one report in Time and runs contrary to Rawat's views as reported in scholarly sources. That renders the Time report and any article that copied it suspect. The edit Will suggests therefore gives undue weight to the goddess incarnate claim. --Zanthorp 08:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Melton, Lewis, and Edwards are all scholarly sources and they all report the goddess incarnation. I don't see any scholarly sources that offer a conflicting account. Since nobody has made a good case against the material, or proposed anything else that summarizes the ten reliable sources listed, I'll go ahead and add the text I proposed.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Will be reverted on sight. Remember this article is under probation! You are pushing your opinion against two other editors', I would not call that consent, nor is it civil. What's eating you? Why are you so keen on trying to make Rawat look like an idiot? It is amazingly arrogant to simply ignore the above argumentation and claim "nobody has made a good case", when only you haven't.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you revert properly sourced information? Are you saying that Melton, Lewis, and Edwards seek to make Rawat look like an idiot? Why are you so keen to keep this out?   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"You can't talk to a man, when he don't wanna understand..." (Carole King, ‘‘Smackwater Jack‘‘)--Rainer P. (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that a response? If so I don't think it was helpful. We have an assertion that is contained in even short biographies of the subject, one which is exceptionally well-sourced to highly reliable scholars and journalists. It is undisputed by other reliable sources. No alternative has been proposed. If editors here refuse to allow neutral, well-sourced material in the article then we'll have to take this to dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Price did not swallow the bait of the ten-armed tiger-riding goddess, that some fanciful Time journalist must have thought to be a good idea. And I do have my own perceptions of who looks like an idiot.-Rainer P. (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to look at this goddess incarnation business in more detail. If the Time report turns out to be wrong, the fact that it was copied and reproduced in 9 other publications does not make it correct. Can someone provide a link to that Time article please? --Zanthorp 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Try http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917390,00.html --Rainer P. (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro change

The change made to the intro does not make sense: "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar). The teachings of Prem Rawat include a meditation technique referred to as Knowledge. [2] "

Pergamino (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Teachings of Prem Rawat tell us that there are 4 techniques. The current lead (a technique) is therefore incorrect, as well as clumsily written. Do other sources agree he used the phrase "spiritual tranquillity"? I have never come across it before. , and it sounds like OR. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent change makes sense, though it is a little clumsy grammatically. I think the point was to make for a better link. But it leaves the the first sentence as a fragment. Maybe we should just undo it.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is just a line giving the man's name and titles. It should be a sentence in the form X is Y (Prem Rawat is...[insert brief description according to taste]). PiCo (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence should be a complete sentence with a verb and it should give the main claim to notability. See WP:MOSBIO.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tried to turn it into a proper lead sentence but not entirely happy - how do you describe his line of work? (Wonder what he puts on his passport?) PiCo (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that passports list professions. In any case, I don't think the qualifier you used is correct. A more correct description would be "Prem Rawat (blah, blah, bah), is a public speaker and a teacher of meditation techniques referred to as Knowledge". The "formerly guru maharaj ji" already establishes that he was a guru. Pergamino (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph

• 1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)); [done]
• 2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);[done]
• 3. Nationality – [not done. Now it says Indian, but the guy is American]
  • 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)
  • 2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. [done]
• 4. What the person did;[done]
• 5. Why the person is significant.[done]

That looks pretty good to me. But I'd cut it a bit shorter, like: "Prem Rawat (blah, blah, bah), is a teacher of meditation techniques." Leave out the "public speaker" (that's how he does what what he does - more important is what he speaks about), and the bit about "referred to as Knowledge" (a little more detail than is needed in a first sentence - it can come later). Incidentally, what does he speak publicaly about? PiCo (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that may work. The official site has some Zen-like quotes but nothing else, and in following the links from the official site I find http://tprf.org/: "Prem Rawat has traveled the world for forty years, bringing a message of peace"; and this http://mspeaks.com/ which seems to be just on what he speaks about. Pergamino (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... is a religious figure and entrepreneur of Indian origin. The teachings of Prem Rawat include a meditation technique referred to as Knowledge.

Rumiton pointed out that the techniques are plural, so it might better to make that change. Also, "spiritual" might be better than "religious" because the movement asserts that it isn't a religion.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to call him a "spiritual teacher"? Could also mention the meditation technique if it's really central, but from listening to to the talk on the link I didn't get the idea that meditation was what he himself felt was central. PiCo (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The meditation is central. It's just that there are public presentations and private presentations. The actual techniques are "secret", so public presentations don't go into details, if I understand correctly.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the place to start would be some references ? What evidence is there that Rawat ‘is’ an entrepreneur ? or that he is ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ ? The abundant sources are for what Rawat ‘was’ not what he is, this problem with ‘tense’ has undermined the accuracy of this article from the very beginning. The MOSBIO format only reinforces this problem and editors need to think creatively if a false picture is not to be given to the reader.

Rawat ‘is’ (was) notable for being a ‘god child’ leader of an Indian originated religious movement that was translated into ‘Western’ contexts, much of this notability arising from the various controversies affecting this process of translation. The vast bulk of Reliable Sources available to Wikipedia editors on this subject date from between 1971 and 1981 – this being the period in which Rawat was notable. Of those sources which have been published since 1981, a majority reference only the period prior to 1985 with the last 20 plus years being mentioned only in contrast to the earlier period.

The meditation itself hardly stands as a point of notability (other than being ‘secret’ it’s not exceptional), though it was certainly the locus of the presentation of the belief system developed by Hans Rawat. I would suggest that the words “is a religious figure and entrepreneur of Indian origin” be replaced by “succeded in 1966 to the leadership of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad), following the death of his father Hans Rawat.” This would be the end of the first paragrah

I then suggest altering the second paragraph to read:

Having become at aged eight Satguru to the several million adherents of the Divine Light Mission, Rawat gained further prominence five years later when he travelled to the UK and US. In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[6][7] In 1973, at age sixteen, Rawat was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement.[8][9] Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance.[10] He became a United States citizen in 1977.[11] Rawat later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[8]

The third paragraph would be unchanged except for the addition of “Several organizations have assisted Rawat in his mission, including Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)”

The issue of entrepreneurship is dubious - although there claims on pro Rawat websites that he is an entrepreneur, there are no public documents detailing Directorships, CEO posts or anything else that would confirm the claims. The issue of spirituality is best avoided in the lead because it is tied to the changes which need detailed descriptions. What the lead needs to do is set up the article as a primarily historical account of what Rawat was, not what he is - because the former involves notability, and the latter doesn't. The use of the term "Satguru" as opposed to "guru" is important in respect of the article references to the origins of the Hans (Prem) Rawat belief system. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As the person who put this word "entrepreneur" into the lead sentence can I just say that I now regard it as a complete red herring and would like to see it removed. I'd like the see the lead sentence say Prem "is" rather than "was" something - it makes it sound as if he's dead. How about: "PR (insert interminable titles) gained prominence in the early 1970s as the titular (is that right?) teen-aged leader of the Divine Light Mission, described at the time as fastest-growing religious movement in the West. As an adult he split with the original DLM (if that's right - correct me if I've got it wrong) and is now a spiritual teacher emphasising meditation practices" (again, if that's right). What I'm trying to do here is establish the grounds of his notability in the first sentence - this sentence should be able to stand alone as a summary of the entire article, even before going on to the lead itself. PiCo (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If not exactly a red herring, it certainly does not help to define the subject's notability. Whatever happened to discussing edits on the talk page first? Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, what you are seeking is laudable, but you are mashing history in your attempt to achieve it. If you are not happy with the wording I've suggested, then you need to set out your preffered wording strictly against the chronology - the key points are.

• 1966 Hans Rawat dies, Prem (aged 8) becomes leader (Satguru) of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) in India.
• 1971 Prem (aged 13)travels to the UK and US - there's lots of media attention.
• 1974/1975 The wider DLM movement splits along family lines, after which the belief system in the non Indian base diverges from the Hans Rawat doctrine.
• 1981(ish) The non Indian DLM movement shows no further sign of expansion, and actually retrenches progressively thereafter.

Please be aware that if you restructure the lead, you may need to seek different references than those currently used, which may be highly specific to the text as it is. The issues to note are that Prem didn't 'gain prominence' in 1966, he was already known to his father's followers, but rather he was 'elevated' on his father's death; adoption of the DLM by elements of the 'counter culture' in Europe, Australasia and the US in the early 1970s, brought Prem as head (titular is correct but you need a source for it) of DLM, to media atention in those geographic areas. Western academics started to take an interest in Rawat largely through the youth/counter culture aspect, while the media were exercised firstly by ice cream and cars, then by girls, booze and cars. By the end of the 1970s no one outside Prem's existing loyal followers was interested and it's been downhill in the 'prominence' stakes thereafter. Contemporary Indian 'spiritual' imports such as TM have continued to have large memberships and affect societies into which they were introduced and media and academic sources reflect this, additionally other Indian 'spiritual' leaders/speakers/teachers have impacted on Western countries - Amma, SS Ravi Shankar becoming far better known than Prem Rawat. Prominence is necessarilly a relative term - Prem Rawat was indeed once prominent, but compared to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or Amma, he is no longer.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've restored the old lead, the one we had before a random user came through.
• Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge.

There's nothing significantly wrong with this version, though the wikilinking is a little clumsy. Let's not keep rewriting the intro unless there's a good reason.   Will Beback  talk  17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The "random user", PiCo, is making good points despite the initial unintended blunder. Hey, PiCo, don't be discourage by Will Beback! Ascribing the adjective "random" isn't very welcoming, but I guess some people in wikipedia are less collegial than others as I have personally learned. Pergamino (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The user I was referring to is Billyoffland. PiCo has been engaging in useful discussion.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Pico and NikWright2 have both made good suggestions for the lede. Here are things I think need to change:
1) change "a meditation practice called Knowledge" to "a meditation practice he calls Knowledge." This matches the lede of Teachings of Prem Rawat, which policy requires.
2) Make more clear that he succeeded his father as head of DLM. The current phrasing makes it sounded like he up and started preaching out of the blue and quickly acquired 3 million followers, which is inaccurate and misleading.
3) reword the organizations line, which makes him sound like the passive recipient of help from these organizations, again misleading and serving the POV of his organizations. Better yet, drop it altogether from the first paragraph.
4) Cut the third paragraph drastically. It has way too much information for the lead, and much of it reads like a brochure from his organization. The simplest way would be to end it after the second sentence (with 'body of dogma.') To wit:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[2] At the age of eight, he succeeded his father as leader of the Divine Light Mission and its 3 million followers in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[3][4] "

2nd paragraph the same, 3rd ends after second sentence. Msalt (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree to the first sentence as you propose, but don't agree with your other ideas and comparisons with brochures and as having too much information. It is a good summary of the article and quite accurate. Pergamino (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone else on board with the first sentence? Let's put aside the third paragraph for now and look at the second sentence of the lede. I think it's important to state in the lede that he succeeded his father as head of DLM at a young age, because that was (and remains) his main claim to notability. It also "sets the scene" for the information that follows in the clearest, most concise way.

In contrast, the current wording -- "At age 8 he became guru to 8 million ... 3 organizations have assisted him" -- is both longer winded and less accurate a picture of what happened (in my humble opinion). Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me, but can you add (Divya Sandesh Parishad) to run on from "Divine Light Mission", because although there will be a link to the DLM article, we should not assume the reader will immediately grasp the chronological sequence of the development of separate organisations using the Divine Light Mission name. Providing the Divya Sandesh Parishad name makes a useful reference point to distinguish between the organisation of Hans Ji Maharaj and the later "western" DLM's. Also I think Hans Ji Maharaj should appear in that first sentence. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hans Ji addition makes sense, but I don't quite see how DSP would fit in. (Can you suggest wording?) My gut feeling is that that would be too much detail for the lede but might make sense in the article body. How's this:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[2] At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (and its 3 million followers) in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[3][4] "

That looks fine to me. It's an improvement over the existing lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks fine to me too (just remember to link to the teachings: " a meditation practice he calls Knowledge"). But keep the names of the organizations there, unless you want to move that to somewhere else in the intro. Pergamino (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Pergamino. I agree, the other organizations should be in the intro, probably at the end of the third paragraph. How about this, after "acceptable" (I know the exact wording is important): "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).[ref]" Msalt (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• ok Pergamino (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we're tinkering - "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[2] At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as guru to 3 million followers in India and gained international prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[3][4] The preceding unsigned comment was added by Momento 01:40, 16 April 2009.

Momento! You've got to be kidding, right? There are 8 Arbcom votes to topic ban you for a year, in large part over your edit warring about Balyogeshwar. And now you're going to try to sneak it in, with no description other than "since we're tinkering" in an unsigned comment? Um... some might consider that bad faith editing. Msalt (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Still fighting over "Balyogeshwar"? Let's leave that dispute to mediation, as we agreed.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• suggested amendment to accommodate (Divya Sandesh Parishad) but also remove reference to follower numbers.

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[2] At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission(Divya Sandesh Parishad) in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[3][4]".

The adherence numbers are given by several sources as being as high as 8 million, but there is no source which distinguishes between followers of Hans Rawat, (and latterly Prem) and the following of DLM/DSP. The problem we have to address is the chronology of change from adherence to Hans Rawat (which predated DLM/DSP), the inheritance of that adherence by Prem - and subsequently the split of that adherence between Prem and Satpal. By according the adherence numbers to the DLM/DSP, rather than to Hans Rawat, it makes the explanation of how the adherence was later split somewhat problematic as Satpal took over DSP, but did not attract all those who had previosly accepted Prem as the Satguru. As there is ambiguity that needs explation I suggest the adherence numbers not appear in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really up to speed on the numbers issue, but I think we need something to indicate the approximate scale. Dropping the numbers altogether would, I think, allow some readers to think the number of adherents was much smaller than it was. How about "succeeded his father as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and its milliions of followers in India." ?? If we had evidence of a sharp drop off in membership, you could say "and millions of its followers in India", but unless there is such evidence I think the first wording is more neutral. Msalt (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's a sensible approach. Pergamino (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Downton lists the Indian membership at 1.2 million by the early 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad)and becoming the new Satguruto his father's several million Indian followers". Divya Sandesh Parishad had only been in existence for six year when Hans Rawat died - yet he had been 'teaching' since at least 1930; I realise that the sources we have, frequently use DLM as the reference point for adherence numbers, but we don't actually have a reference for the 1966 figures which makes sense. We do have a clear statement of the membership of the DSP (as distinct from adherence to the Satguru (Hans or Prem) in 1970 that is "one lac" or 100,000.

• Shri Maharaj Ji realised the necessity of following a modern technique for propagation, and wished to provide for his followers an organisation in which they could work for the betterment of mankind. Therefore, in 1960 the mission was named the Divine Light Mission and registered at Patna. For the first time membership in the Mission was recorded. This allowed Maharaj Ji to see the definite growth of membership, enabling him to make practical plans in accordance with the wishes of the members. At Present the Mission has its branches all over India as well as in England and South Africa. Its membership runs approximately into one lac. [4].

This was written by the incumbent Secretary of the DSP who might be considered an authorative source. Note also the mention of 'branches' in England and S.A, as distinct from the later nationally independent DLMs. The Divine Light Mission article uses this source[5] for a figure of 6 million in 1966 but this is clearly a confusion between adherence to the teaching and actual membership of the DSP association; the DSP Secretary would hardly be talking of one lac, if the actual membership was in the millions. I think the construction I've suggested may be a bit 'weaselish' but if we have to quote numbers in the lede I can't see an alternative that isn't going to be confusing, if not outright misleading. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I don't think it's weaselish at all, just precise. I like this wording a bit better but same meaning I think: "succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers."

• You need to add that he was 8 years-old when he became guru, which is one of the things that made him notable. Pergamino (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in there. See below. Msalt (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Lede (Draft including above suggestions)

Reset here for clarity, and because I think we're close to done if not completely done here:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.

Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries, and in the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. He became a United States citizen in 1977. He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable. The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

Msalt (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. The description of DLM disbanding is an issue, but it should be resolved on the DLM and Elan Vital pages first and changes made here as a consequence of that. I've made some observations at [6] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Everyone seems to be on board, so I'm going to put this in. Msalt (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also made a slight change to the alternate names -- removing the parens, so "also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar)" became "also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Mahjaraj Ji and Balyogeshwar,". I don't think this would be controversial, and I think it definitely reads better, but since we didn't discuss it I put it in a separate edit in case anyone wants to revert. Msalt (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aldridge citation

"Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims." How did this bit of miscarried logic ever get into the lead section? Grammar constructs a contradiction, where content actually does not. And how do the footnotes support the statement? I am going to delete the sentence, if it cannot be improved. Rawat stated from the very beginnings, that he was going to bring peace to single human beings, and that was how peace was to be spread in the "world", and never claimed anything else. There was no change in strategy. He is still working on it (said so in Berlin 2008), and (O.R.) quite successfully so.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's almost a verbatim copy of what a recent scholarly book says.

• Originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society. Aldridge, p. 59. [7]

Do we have a source for your assertion? Please don't delete this text until we have agreement on this.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Will, you are right and I had got the footnotes mixed up. It is indeed what Aldrige says, even though it is a weak statement for a lead, and if the section was to be shortened, this one should go out, for the named reason.-Rainer P. (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) It can't be deleted then, but should be moved to a less prominent place, perhaps in "Westernisation". Opinions?-Rainer P. (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's deal with one change at a time.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the other matter has been completed, let's return to this. I agree with Rainer's point and think we should move this out of the lead and down to "teachings". The wording can also be improved. I propose:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society. [ref]Alridge, Alan — Religion in the Contemporary World (2007) — p.59[/ref]

Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other notable scholars who state that there has been such a change of goal? If not, the notion that there was one is digressive and should be handled very critically, preferably omitted.-Rainer P. (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understnad the principle behind your objeciton. Are you proposing that all asertions in the article need to be cited from two or more scholars? That is not the normal standard for Wikipeia articles, and this is not an extraordinary claim.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is an exceptional claim. It suggests that there has been a fundamental change in goals and teachings, when actually there hasn't. Who else supports this claim?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, there is no doubt that he has changed much of the form in which he presents his teachings over time -- is there a cite that says his basic premise of inner peace or world peace did not change over that period? I would not intrinsically regard it as a bone of contention for sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much of the form has changed, nobody denies this. But Aldridge claims a change of goals, which is a very different thing. It is rather a constitutional characteristic of Rawat's teachings that its goal has NOT changed over time, and surely one can find sources for that. What does IIRC mean?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC means "I have been online for way too many years" :) Actually "If I Recall Correctly." Has the change in form led in any way to a perception that there was a corresponding change in focus (note that I suggest "goal" may be the problem word here) and that the newer form appears to focus more on self-contentment and peace than the earlier form did? Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't assess perception of others. There is certainly an important point in accentuating that through all the many surface changes - from 70ies to now - there has never been a change in substance. But that is pretty much the contrary of what the current edit suggests, that's why it's an exceptional claim. It signifies the essential difference between adaptability and arbitrariness.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something closer to "Through all the changes in form of his presentation, the core teachings remained the same. The focus, however, came to be more specifically placed on self-contentment then on a world peace movement"? Something closer to that, and avoiding the word "goal" which I thought was your primary issue? Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word 'goal' at issue when the proposed source doesn't use that word ? And what is the source for "world peace movement" ? this term has specific connotations and use should be supported by a reference, not introduced as an editorial interpretation of what Divine Light Mission may or may not have been. Rainer's objection to Alridge is misplaced and the text should reflect as closely as possible Alridge's original wording.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nik is right. The original wording says: Though he aspired to bring about world peace..., that's where goal comes from. Rawat never claimed to be part of a "world peace movement', but he said something like: I will establish peace in this world (the 1971 Delhi "peace bomb"). This is what he did and does. "Establish" like in: a food programme was established in a country - this does not mean, everybody will be fed. He has thus been continually establishing peace in this world by teaching his Knowledge to single individuals, it is the very core of his teachings, there has been no change, except in the way his mission is being propagated. Technology has changed a lot, so there is no need for large gatherings when everybody is online. It is really a superficial change. You would not mention, that his car looks different than it did 40 years ago. Ron Geaves is very explicit on the consistency of Rawat's teachings, if you need sources for the fact that there was no substantial change. The changing in outward appearance was solely a consequence of technolocical advance. Alridge's statement is exceptional, and if reported at all, should be characterised as such. I see no need to mention it at all, as it is contentious and does not help the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting take -- so you feel the changes were due to technology and that the shift from Hinduism was a technoligical one? The article pretty much says it was a sociological change. Perhaps "The focus shifted from "establishing peace in this world" to a stronger focus on self-contentment" ? Collect (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there's no consensus to retain the Aldridge quote, which is more germane to the article on "Teachings" anyway. I'll just delete it from the intro and suggest that we either discuss adding similar material to the "teachings" section of this article or to the "teachings" article itself.   Will Beback  talk 

I disagree. There's no such consensus to delete it, although may be a consensus to move it to another place in the article. Pergamino (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing it now for a week and no one seemed to like it. There was no consensus to add it in the first place: just the opposite. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and there's a question of whether it belongs anywhere. Please find a consensus before adding it back.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This material, which has been put back by Pergamino, is now in the wrong location, since it discusses his teachings rather than an event.   Will Beback  talk  16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus. It's still an exceptional and misleading claim and would have to be amended by sourced statements of the contrary (e.g. Geaves), or else omitted completely.-Rainer P. (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I see that there's strong opposition to this so I'll remove it, but I still don't understand why it can't be used. Pergamino (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be used, I think, if it were proportionally weighed against the predominant view that there has been an essential consistency in Rawat’s teachings, through many changes in appearance. Otherwise the quote would be misleading. That would in a way enhance the article’s informational content, but make it more bloated and less readable. I think your decision is wise.---Rainer P. (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some additional comments

The first paragraph of the lede states, "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission" Further into the article we read, "Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.[9][26][27]" And in the DLM article we read, "As Rawat grew older, he began to take a more active role in the movement and, when he turned sixteen, following the financially disastrous Millennium '73 festival, he took administrative control of the US branch. His increasing independence and his marriage to a non-Indian in 1974 caused a permanent rift with his mother and two of his brothers. They returned to India, where his eldest brother Satpal Maharaj gained control of the Indian DLM."

I am at a disadvantage because I do not have copies of the sources. Do Downton and Lewis disagree with Melton and Fahlbusch or is the first paragraph wrong? My guess is that, as the articles state, Rawat did not take control because at 8 years old he was was far too young, probably never took control of the Indian branch and did not assume control of the US branch until he turned 16.

The first paragraph should therefore read,
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[2] At the age of eight after the death of his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, he became Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[3][4]

The last part of the last sentence in Paragraph 3 may also problematic. "...which according to him takes priority over societal aims. [14][15]" appears to be a vague, sweeping statement. What societal aims? Does Aldridge [15] support his statement by quoting Rawat or are we expected to accept what may be an aberrant finding without supporting evidence? Again I am at a disadvantage because I do not have a copy of the book. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your main point. I'm pretty sure that there are sources which say that the subject became the spiritual leader or head of the DLM on the death of his father, when he was proclaimed the satguru or Perfect Master. I don't believe any of the sources contradict each other on the basic framework, which is that he had little control when he was very young, but that he took on more responsibility as he grew older. I think that deleting the DLM name from the lede would be removing the subject's chief claim of notability.

As for the "priority over societal aims", that is consistent with many sources that I've read, according to which the subject says that inner peace must come before world peace. The subject, so far as I'm aware, focuses on self-development rather than societal change. If so, how would this be an abherrant finding? However I'm not sure we need it in the intro. Due to some recent edits the "teachings" paragraph of the intro has grown so it'd be good to cut it back down to a proportionate length.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Aldridge is readable here: [8] You can search on Rawat to find the appropriate passage on p. 59. Aldridge asserts that Rawat once espoused world peace, but then gave up that aspiration and now "focuses on the needs of individuals". I think scholars may disagree on that point, which is perhaps a good reason to leave it out of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link. My main point is that the first paragraph assertion that R succeeded his father as leader of the DLM is, in effect, contradicted by the Childhood section of the article and also by the DLM article. The article tells us that control of the organization was shared by his family due to R's youth. In other words, at 8 years old he was too young to exercise control and therefore too young to lead the DLM. In other words, no control - no leadership. I think that common sense would tell the average reader that an 8 year old kid who spends his week days in school cannot lead an organization, especially one of that magnitude.

In contrast, the article does support the notion of him becoming "satguru" to millions of followers. Satguru = true guru[[9]]; guru = teacher or guide[[10]], so satguru translates as true teacher or true guide. According to the article, his father previously taught him the meditation techniques, so presumably he would have been able to do the same, and he travelled at weekends talking to followers as his father had done.

If Downton and Lewis both state that R succeeded his father as leader, maybe it would be better to include that in the Childhood section where it can be presented in a more realistic context. For example,

According to Downton[3] and Lewis[4], Rawat succeeded his father as leader of the DLM, but because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.[9][26][27]

The DLM is adequately covered in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. With a minor edit to paragraph 2, its removal from the first paragraph would not be a problem. As a bonus, the lede would become shorter. What do you think? --Zanthorp (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Durga Ji

Ten sources spanning 32 years say that the subject named his wife "Durga Ji", and most also say that he claimed she was the incarnation of a Hindu goddess, Durga. (See #Durga Ji above for excerpts and previous discussion). The sources include highly reliable journalistic sources and well-known, mainstream scholars. The assertion is included in even short biographies of the subject. No reliable sources dispute it. The assertion is already included in Divine Light Mission#Marriage and rift, but it would be even more relevant here. I have proposed adding something like, He renamed his bride 'Durga Ji', and reportedly said that she was an incarnation of Durga, a Hindu goddess. However another editor has said that he would revert any such addition "on sight". To avoid an edit war I'd like to get input on this matter before making an edit. Question: Is there any policy-based reason to exclude this from the article?   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

I strongly oppose any inclusion based on US mainstream media, in this case Time Magazine, as US mainstream media has proved for decades to be completely controlled and unreliable. I strongly oppose any suggestion for inclusions made by Will Beback, as he has proved for long to be obsessed with mentioning whatever makes Prem Rawat ridiculous and opposing whatever makes him respectable, completely against Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. I strongly support that Will Beback be banned from the Prem Rawat biography, with which he is so clearly obsessed. This is in my opinion more in favour of Wikipedia than of Prem Rawat’s biography.--81.32.153.77 (talk) Pedrero 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

i strongly support Will with the inclusion of Durga Ji in the article. It is a shame that the supporters are so much lying about the past. It is them that should be banned from the article. Wikipedia is not the place to create a reputation for Rawat which he doesn't have Surdas (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem including Durga Ji either. I see a problem hawking an obviously contentious bit of information from an ephemeral mainstream magazine article, which is not obliged to the constraints of a Wiki-BLP. The disputed incarnation bit does not gain in seriousness by being repeated by some more or less scholarly authors (hardly monographic papers). It’s not like independent scientists arrive at the same conclusion in independent experiments, which would naturally strengthen the point. It rather appears to be the uncritical perpetuation of one dubious newspaper catchphrase, and with the time it seems to rather lose than gain credibility, especially as it does not at all fit into the broader context. I don’t mean to judge Time magazine, they need a certain amount of, let’s say, creative space in order to make people read what they write every day, and everybody knows that. But to include it uncommented in an encyclopaedic biography of a living person gives it a dignity it does not deserve. I guess, that’s what the BLP rules are for. Generally I have the impression the article has partly developed systematically into a desultory accumulation of titillating mass media trivia under Will Beback’s dominance. I do not assume bad intent, but likely an excessive demand of deeper understanding that is actually required for handling this article. I appreciate his diligence, but he should not be allowed to push his opinion against other editors the way we are witnessing currently, especially when there appears to be a bias toward outrageous tidbits (like ten-armed, tiger-riding goddesses) he seems to share with some of his sources. Wikipedia itself will serve as a source for many, so we have a special responsibility.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to respond to several errors posted above. First, the "incarnation bit" isn't disputed by any scholar or reliable source. Second, this isn't sourced solely to TIME magazine, a highly reliable source in its own right. It's only conjecture that other writers are merely copying what TIME reported. Third, Melton has his critics but they are mostly from the anti-cult side who feel he's been too cozy with his subjects. I'm not sure why he'd be grouped here as a "more or less scholarly author". He is undoubtedly a scholarly author, as are several others among the sources. If Melton is not a reliable source then we need to re-write much of the article. Fourth, no one has proposed an alternative to the text I've suggested, so the rejection has appeared absolute. I hadn't gotten the impression that there'd be "no problem" with including any part of this text. I urge editors to work towards consensus and suggest a compromise that they'd accept which properly summarizes reliable sources. Fifth, it's patently false to assert that I have exerted "dominance" over this article. Jossi made 1115 edits, Momento made 1068, Rumiton made 674, and I've only made 265.[11] Combined, those three editors plus some other accounts have made just under half of the edits to the article, while I've made less than 1/20th. That's not domination. Finally, nobody has suggested adding "ten-armed, tiger-riding" to the article. Setting up strawmen to knock down doesn't further the discussion. The proposed text is soberly written, reliably sourced, and uses the neutral point of view. Let's discuss that rather than fanciful or imagined proposals.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Will, sorry about the 10armed goddess, I was just going to delete that sentence, when you had already reacted. My apology. Then: Maybe Melton is one of the more scholarly authors (Randi one of the less). Where do you think the incarnation bit originally came from, if not from the TIME article? Lets not be naive. And Jossi certainly dominated the article in his time, as you do now. Only he seemed to react to other editors points more attentively, from my experience. And for text: How about something like: In 1974 sixteen years old Prem Rawat married 25 years old Marolyn Johnson, one of his early American students, who temporarily carried the name Durga Ji afterwards, according to Hinduistic tradition. (Please feel free to improve, it is not my first language).--Rainer P. (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At the Teachings of PR discussion page, Nik used the term, "a platform for discussion." These discussion pages are our platform for discussion. New content added in haste does not provide a stable discussion base, as we have seen recently at the teachings article. Will seems far too eager lately to charge ahead adding new content without sufficient discussion and reasonable consensus. I don't think that kind of approach is constructive. Rainer P believes that a statement incorrectly attributed to Rawat appeared originally in Time and was then picked up and reported as fact in other publications. This should not be lightly dismissed. --Zanthorp 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

If it's just a belief of Rainer P.'s then it should be dismissed. On Wikipedia we deal with verifiable facts, not beliefs about what might be true. Rainer has offered no evidence that the reports are incorrect, or that they are all copied from one source. We could use the same logic to impeach any assertion in Wikipedia. On the one hand we have ten reliable sources. On the other hand we have Rainer's unsubstantiated belief that they are all wrong. Are there really editors who think we should give both sides equal weight in this discussion?   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917390,00.html Read this! It does not even try to be serious, but is highly concentrated ridicule and sneer. There is no other independent source for this, no matter how many authors mention the issue. Show me one! But if it’s mentioned in WP, it gaines credibility, and that can’t be the idea. So the thing is at least contentious, and it does not make the article any better, should be omitted.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Melton and Lewis are reliable sources, in and of themselves. We have no evidence that TIME was their source.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It requires a lot of gullibility to assume that Melton et al. had a secret source other than TIME. Most of the involved editors here are better informed. In my book this does not make TIME more reliable, instead it renders Melton more unreliable.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm counting correctly, we now have responses from two uninvolved editors, one semi-involved editor, and two involved editor to the effect that we should include the material. Do you accept that input?   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for hurry.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) And I don't see that Steve Crossin really supports your proposition, does he?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for several days, so there's no need to hurry but there's also no need to drag this out. What other views are you expecting to get? Crossin appears to say that if there are reliable sources for the assertion, and no reliable sources that dispute the assertion, then it should be included. Do you accept that input or do you still think that TIME, Melton, Lewis, et al., are all unreliable sources?   Will Beback  talk  09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by Zanthorp's quoting me if he had actually started discussing changes before he made them. Wanting those who are not happy with his changes to only discuss them after the fact seems somewhat lacking in a commitment to Good Faith. But perhaps I have misunderstood.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The factual material surely belongs, though perhaps the wording might be bent a tad? "M J called his wife G J, and reportedly referred to her as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess G."? Might that avail? I do not see this as being something which ought to be a major issue. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Collect; he nailed it. Pergamino (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect's version is pretty much the same as what I was proposing. I'd endorse it too.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

“Reportedly” is the weasel word here. It suggests that there is more than only one original more or less reliable source, when there most likely isn’t. The item is therefore on weak grounds, and as it is contentious (obviously), regarding to content (and not only an irrelevant casual detail) of a BLP, concerning two living people, should be omitted. I’m pretty sure Melton wouldn’t object, insisting on his “reliability in and of himself”, as Will put it. Let's share some sanity!--Rainer P. (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You say this is obviously contentious, but I don't see any reliable sources that dispute the assertion. According to whom is this contentious? We have ten reliable sources on the one hand and no sources on the other hand. I just don't understand on what basis we should omit this material which is included in even short biographies. Should we delete assertions that have even fewer sources?   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is contentious because it is contended here. I have produced some arguments, which I (still!) feel have not really been addressed adequately, and I find it hard to accept that I find so little support for these. I do not feel the matter is insignificant, for reasons explained above. I just don't want to keep on repeating myself. If we can't find an agreement, how do you think about placing a footnote on the item, leading to the TIME-article, so the reader can determine themselves what is meant by "reportedly"? After all, gossip does not turn into science when it is multiplied, or does it?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing a footnote with the context of the sources. So here's the proposal on the table: "M J called his wife G J, and reportedly referred to her as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess G." [Footnote: quotes from citations]. How does that sound?   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like it, but for the time being it can be seen as making the best of a bad job.-Rainer P. (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make sure that the footnote leads to the entire TIME-article, not just an isolated quote, so that the character of the source becomes identifiable.Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We can provide the link the the citation so readers can view it for themselves.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "reportedly" is weasel wording. As unsatisfactory as it is I think its the best compromise we are likely to reach for the time being, and one that is likely to draw least attention to a disputed statement. Unless someone can come up with something better, I suggest that we go with Collect's suggestion for now and put this on the agenda for future discussion. I think Rainer P has hit on a policy issue that is germane to many BLVPs, not just this one, and it is one that we really do need to address. Unfortunately, verifiability takes precedence over veracity and accuracy. I think there is a way around this. I'll get back to it very soon. I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment. Zanthorp 10:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Do you agree to Collect's suggestion with Rainer's footnote?: "M J called his wife G J, and reportedly referred to her as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess G." [Footnote: link to TIME article].   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Collect's wording. It's excellent. JN466 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with Collect's wording. There's general consensus for that. I do not agree that we should use the TIME article as a source. There are many reasons to avoid sub-standard tabloid-style journalism. That article must have been a defining low point for TIME, and it shows that very poor quality journalism can find its way into publications that are usually considered fairly reliable. The good news is that tabloid-style journalism is easily identifiable by its use of hyperbole, often insinuating some kind of scandalous wrong-doing that turns out to be completely baseless as is the case with this Time article.

I posit that sub-standard, tabloid-style articles identified by excessive use of hyperbole, and gross distortion of facts, should be excluded as sources for BLVPs no matter where they are published. In addition, where material from such articles is reproduced in other articles, that material should also be excluded from BLVPs. I would like to see this adopted generally as part of BLVP policy. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the text. I'll use multiple sources. Rainer insists that we link to the TIME article, while Zanthorp finds it unacceptable. By providing multiple sources the readers can decide for themselves how reliable this fact is. If there are further questions about the reliability of TIME we can refer them to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Thanks to everyone for being reasonable and reaching consensus on this matter.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• I don't see an issue here. Well, I do, but the issue is not on article content, it's user conduct. That said, if there are adequate reliable sources, and no reliable sources that disagree with the sources that say that X is true, happened, etc, and that the content is relevant and useful to the article, it should be added. If there are sources that state that X happened/is true and sources that argue that X didn't happen/is not true, they should be compared and weighed, and failing that, add something like "Joe Bloggs from the New York Times said blah blah, but Jane Doe from the Herald Sun said blah blah" should probably be added. And, of course, if the content is not relevant or useful to the article, it probably should be omitted. (And I don't see the fact I mediated this case previously as me being involved.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 08:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• This deserves inclusion because it is referenced and no cited sources address this issue and dispute it. I would ask Pedrero or any other critic to suggest some way to integrate this thoroughly referenced fact into some small part of the article. Undoubtedly Prem Rawat is a controversial figure and there are sources - not to say they are correct or incorrect, but merely extant - that corroborate what Will Beback is saying. It is irrelevant whether this is true. Including this would be a minor addition and if no critic will integrate this into the article, then I see no reason why Will Beback should not do it as he sees fit. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Will's argument to include the detail in the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

These are not random speeches, but are (few of many) useful examples for Rawat’s current engagement toward peace. We just recently had a discussion here about the Alridge quote, where Rawat’s focus on peace was debated. So the text should not be deleted without previously seeking consensus. I will revert.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While Titanium Dragon should have discussed the change, writing that "but are (few of many) useful examples for Rawat’s current engagement toward peace" appears POV pushing. What does "engagment toward peace" mean ? The subject of the bio gave a speech - so what ? The text doesn't say that these are examples of such events, nor does it appear there was anything exceptional about these secific speeches. The subject of the bio habitually gives speeches, how is it that these are selected for mention as being distinct from any other ? Apart from the fact that speeches were delivered the reader is not informed of anything - WP isn't a listings publication.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has an outstandingly adventurous history and has been shot to shambles and pieced up again perhaps a few times too many, so it looks a little like a car after the Paris-Dakar Rallye, it does not impress by elegance, but seems to have a sturdy frame. Some parts do appear abrupt, or out of context, like the ones Nik relates to. They should be embedded into the context flow more elegantly, I agree. They should not be simply deleted. A complete rewrite would be fine, but who can claim enough integrity to do it in one pour! Nik’s proposal sounds good to me, but probably a very similar situation would evolve as it is now, so we might as well try to smoothen the article as it is, there is already so much work in it, like in a samurai-blade, that is crimped and forged repeatedly. Suggestion: let’s mention some exemplary events related to peace, where Rawat spoke, like this Italian event, or Florianopolis and the like, explicitely pointing out Rawat’s peace-related activities, remove it from “21st century” and place it into the “teachings”-section, in order to address this world-peace vs. personal peace issue. I am reluctant though to do it myself, as English is a foreign language to me. Opinions? Propositions?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Paris-Dakar rally car analogy is appropriate :) Basically I agree with you, but I think Nik's proposal is problematic because the structure he proposes would produce a very disjointed biography. If you don't have enough confidence in your English ability, please post you material here. I volunteer to work on it with you. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disjointed"? Can you give a more specific critique?   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see reply above. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) After accepting that changes should be discussed first, - Zanthorp has once again made changes to the article without discussion [12]and without giving any references to support the new material, in so doing has compounded an existing error that was previously limited to the lede. As has been discussed previously, California Law does not have any specific provision to grant adult status to a minor, any source that claims Rawat was granted such a status must therefore be in error. What would have been possible under California statute is that a Judge could have granted Rawat the right to marry despite his then minor status; and in consequence, by virtue of being married Rawat, would have incidentally gained adult status. Unless a legally competant source can be identified for the claim of emancipated minor status, all refrence to it should be removed from the artcile and the simple of fact of the marriage (which is supported by sources) left unadulterated. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization

To separate out some mingled threads, I'm creating this thread to discuss the headings and other organizational issues. Nik Wright2 has proposed some changes to the headings. I proposed that we label the chronological sections with simple decade or year ranges. Any further discusson?   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article hides controversy, is not presented in a neutral way

This article has severe POV issues. Reading the article, it is not immediately obvious in any one place that it is POV. However, when you read over the whole article, you see several very real issues:

1. The criticisms often leveled at him are buried in paragraphs and in sections. While I'm all for integrating criticism into the main body of an article, in this case the effect is not to provide a balanced POV but rather to hide the bad things. The sections also consistently end on a positive note, which is very, very forced and obvious once you've read over the entire article.
2. There is insufficient criticism of someone who has been termed a cult leader and has been accused - repeatedly - of essentially robbing his followers so he can live an opulent lifestyle.
3. The overall tone of the article is sympathetic to this man. It shouldn't be.
4. The emphasis on the positive is excessive, and numerous statements are glowingly positive.

This article needs some help. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Start listing your suggested changes here so that we can discuss them. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples of issues

Leaving India section

His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. His first western address was given in June 1971 at the first Glastonbury Fayre, and in September he spoke to a large US gathering in Colorado. A US based Divine Light Mission (DLM) was established in Denver, Colorado by Bob Mishler. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers. One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there...he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody...Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees". Enthusiastic new members spread the message that the 13-year-old Rawat could reveal God.

This whole paragraph is a great example of the POV prevalent in this article, as well as several of the issues. The negativity is buried in the second paragraph, is only a sentence long, and is rebutted immediately by fawning praise. "But he also created an extraordinary amount of itnerest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.", beyond being a poorly written sentence, is blatently POV in his favor. Likewise "Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace, and commitment shown by Rawat's followers."

America 1973

A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers. Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement. Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives, but public attitudes were often unsympathetic. Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly.

Another example of the same issue of burying criticism, it also presents uncritically the statement of the reporter, which is in utter contrast to ex-members of the group, who claim the opposite - that he was regarded as divine by his followers, and accepted many lavish gifts from them; indeed, he has been criticized as being the opposite of humble and human, repeatedly, elsewhere in the article. The reporter's comment is very tacked on at the beginning, doesn't make much sense in the context of the paragraph, and is clearly a rebuttal/burying of the topic of the paragraph. How public attitudes were unsympatheic is not addressed, and it should be, if we want to integrate it into this section.

Coming of Age

This section has criticism of Rawat's lifestyle buried in the center of it, another example of burying criticism. Likewise, the paragraph itself speaks about his lavish lifestyle, but gives no examples, nor does it go into any amount of detail about his lavish lifestyle, leaving the critical paragraph lacking substance. It also, likewise, has the same rebuttal format as the criticism elsewhere, though it is much less pronounced. However, this paragraph is very out of place, as it is stuck smack dab in the middle of a section about his break with his mother, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to that topic. It should be split off into its own section and, given that it is a major criticism of him, I'd say it should be removed from this chronological section entirely and given its own section.

1976-1980 and Westernization

Downton is used a great deal to say what his followers thought, but his conclusions are, again, directly contradicted by members of the group who left in later years, who claimed that they saw him as divine into the 1990s at least. This is, again, uncritical, and in particular:

By 1976, most students viewed Rawat primarily as a spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration.

Is in fact a rebuttal to this very critism, which is unspoken. While publically he renounced his image, his ex-followers have claimed this was merely a public charade and he has been accussed of using this to simply drop off the media's radar so he no longer was as obviously a cult leader.

While the little tidbit about his flying is possibly noteworthy, it probably belongs elsewhere in the article, as its placement at this point appears totally random.

Media

The first sentence really is an introduction to a paragraph, but is left hanging out on its own unnecessarily.

In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about it] and the next day something completely different is printed."

Again, this is a rebuttal to criticism which doesn't appear in the article. What the newspapers said should be stated.

This paragraph concludes with:

Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[132][133] as well as anti-cult writings.[134][135]

Which really deserves its own section, rather than a throwaway sentence.

Charisma and Leadership

This is a positive heading for a section which is, in fact, largely negative. Again, it obscures criticism, because while critical, it isn't obvious that it is a criticism section, even though that is what it actually is. It also buries the criticism between the first and last paragraphs, the first which is not negative, the second which is positive.

Additionally, the paragraph beginning with David G. Bromley speaks of his failings in his marriage, but what those might be go completely unstated, depriving the criticism of its substance.

Following

The section on former followers is a single paragraph long, two sentences long, and is written from a POV sympathetic to the Elan Vital movement.

Also, Stephen Hunt's claims that Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion is, again, contradicted by statements made by previous members of the group.

• Apparently at one point, Criticism of Prem Rawat was split from this page. I found the deletion discussion, which had a merge consensus, and some of the people commenting on the issue noted that this splitting had effectively been a POV fork which made this page unencylopedic and left the criticism page such as well. I suspect what ended up happening was that the criticism was cut out, then not worked back into the article very well. Perhaps we should reexamine that page and try to pull in stuff from it which is neglected in this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Looking at the criticism page, its not very well written, and I'm not sure how much is salvageable; while the stuff about financial exploitation of followers is... okay, its not very detailed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• These are all valid comments from Titanium Dragon however resolving the problems requires (IMO)a structural approach, not an ad hoc attempt to put right long standing problems, carried out on a piecemeal basis. I've been making the point for over two years that both the section structure and existing section headings are profoundly unencyclopaedic and in some case seriously POV. My suggestion is that any substantial re-write begins with some agreement on structure; the following section heads are my preference:

  • • 1 CHILDHOOD
    • 2 ADOLESCENCE
    • 3 SCHISM
    • 4 INTERREGNUM
    • 5 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
    • 6 FROM GURU TO INSPIRATIONAL SPEAKER
    • 7 PHILOSOPHY and BELIEFS
    • 8 THE KNOWLEDGE MEDITATION
    • 9 COMMUNICATING THE TECHNIQUES OF MEDITATION
    • 10 PERSONAL
    • 11 FOOTNOTES

  These heads are accompanied by a draft text at [13] however I'm not suggesting that text as the starting point. There was valuable material produced in the 2008 mediation, the drafts concerning Charismatic leadership were particularly valuable [14] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we should base editorial debates on "preferences". The page, from what I can gather, is well-written and profusely referenced. It's neither an hagiography of the guru, nor a hatchet job, which is what a neutral article should be. Basically, supporters of the guru will never be happy with the page, neither will his critics, and that is just perfectly fine. The only thing I see missing is some stuff about the CIA conspiracy theories in both India and the US in the 70s, and an exposition of the move from world-peace aspirations to personal peace. Pergamino (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a detailed list of problems that we can work to address. While Nik is probably right that a larger re-organization may be beneficial, this topic is such that grand corrections are hard to digest while more modest improvements are more achievable.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate discussions here: the specific POV issues raised by Titanium Dragon, and the organizational issues raised by Nik Wright2. I suggest that we keep them separate, maybe even split this thread. Regarding the organization, this article has two halves. The second part is topical, covering interests, teachings, and reception. This proposal doesn't concern them.

The first part is a chronological account of notable events and actions.

I've worked on hundreds of biographies on Wikipedia. It's my experience that overly descriptive section headings can cause their own problems. For the first part, I suggest switching to headings which list years or decades. For examples, "1960s", "1970-'75", "Twenty-first century" or "2000s". The advatange of this scheme is that it is very neutral. The heading is neutral plus the contents are not prejudged. A section heading like "Westernization" implies that it only concerns issues of Westernization, while in fact that section deals with all aspects of the subject's life during a time period. The headings should better reflect the contents. So I suggest:

• Childhood = 1960s
• Leaving India=1970-1972
• America 1973=1973
• Millennium '73=1973
• Coming of age=1974-1980
• 1976–1980=1974-1980
• Westernization = 1980-2000
• Twenty-first century = 2000s

Does anyone think that's less neutral then the current scheme? The subject's life has been complex - let's keep our description simple where we can.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the rationale of a purely chronological ‘bio’ sequence, with the non event based material following in separate sections. I have two concerns though – firstly the use of editorialised sections heads – Coming of Age and Westernisation. These are far less precise than the date heads or the notable event head of Millenium (although I would prefer to simply include Millenium within the 73-75 date range), and this leads to my second concern. At present there is a poor distinction between the life of the individual ‘biography’ and an explanation of the dynamics of the organisations with which he is associated; of course the two things are intimately related, but when we use a phrase like Coming of Age and then link that to organisational outcomes there is a real danger of a false synthesis of sources. Likewise with Westernisation, certainly there is one academic source which identifies Rawat’s ‘teaching’ as becoming westernised but that is not the same thing as the bio subject (Prem Rawat) becoming westernised. Of course as a person Rawat did change culturally, ( though Americanised would be a more precise term) , but I don’t think we have sources that talk about him personally becoming Westernised – certainly not in a sense that might be understood from Westernised . Particular thought needs to be given to how the family schism is to be dealt with – is it just an event in the chronological treatment, plus an artefact to be recorded in the Beliefs section, or are the philosophical and belief aspects of the schism to be treated as part of the personal chronology (which is what the current Coming of Age section does, albeit rather badly).

One smaller point - the operative date range should be 75 (or 76) to 1983, not 1980 – 82/83 is when the ashrams closed and the period when renaming of the DLM’s as Elan Vital commenced. The 1980 date comes from Björkqvist, unfortunately there seems no other academic who has given a precise date for the ashram closures, however Björkqvist may be considered suspect on this point because he can be shown to be wrong in his associated statement that the “DLM was disbanded”, based on good primary source evidence [15] In the absence of any other definitive source, the primary source of the Elan Vital Foundation [16] , can be used to fix the 1983 date as the point of its creation – the organisational name Elan Vital representing the new phase in Rawat’s life. This reliance on primary sources may not be desirable but they do provide consistency. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon's apparent POV is the problem, not the neutrality of the article.

There are more than 30 paragraphs in the article. Mostly they report facts in a neutral tone and are well referenced. TD perceives 2 or 3 of those as problematic in terms of POV. Even if a POV problem can be identified, the overall tone of the article is not governed by those few paragraphs. The article overall is neutral, balanced and well referenced. I agree with Pergamino about this.

There is no problem at all with presenting and comparing contrasting reports in the same paragraph. Criticism or "Negativity" is not "buried", it is quite prominent. Its there for anyone to read. If some of the article is positive it is because the sources are positive. If other content is negative, that's because the sources are negative. We report the sources. We do not remove their meaning or restructure the article to suit Titanium Dragon's POV.

There is no "fawning praise" in this. "But he also created an extraordinary amount of itnerest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God." The sentence reports a fact according to the source.

The biggest problem here seems to be Titanium Dragon's perception, apparently colored by whatever he or she has been reading. I see no reason to write an unsympathetic biography based on unreliable, unspecified, tabloid(?) material that someone happens to have read and taken seriously. "...essentially robbing his followers so he can live an opulent lifestyle." According to every source I've seen, Rawat teaches his meditation free of charge, and as far as I am aware he does not solicit money during his talks. If Rawat acted like a tele-evangelist soliciting donations in exchange for a ticket to heaven, then Titanium Dragon would have a case. As it is, TD has no case.

Rewriting the article according to TD's POV will not produce a good, stable article. It will produce the opposite. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to discus the POV of other editors, unless you're willing to have your own POV placed on the table for discussion too. It'd be better if we just focus on the content and avoid discussing each other.

The first problem that TD notes is this pair of sentences:

• His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader.[12][13] But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.[12]

There are several problems. One is weight. More space is devoted to the positive aspects than the negative aspects, even though the first sentence has two sources instead of one. In fact, there are dozens of sources that discuss at length the problems that the subject had with public perceptions. There are relatively few that mention the delight that he brought to followers. So giving them equal weight doesn't fairly represent the range of views. Second, the word "but" implies that one offsets the other, or that there is a contradiction. That's what gives the impressoin that the critical material is being compensated by positive material.

I don't think we can sweepingly say that the article is perfect and needs no further improvements. Not when specific problems have been pointed out. Let's take them one at a time and seek improvements.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "problems" being pointed out; what I see is strong bias from both sides. Pergamino (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What bias are you talking about? Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Will, I don't mind having my POV discussed. My POV is that the article should be fair, neutral and conform with policy, not doctored to render it less sympathetic because someone apparently doesn't like the subject, or more sympathetic because someone loves the subject. And if possible lets make it accurate, succinct and well written. The article does need work. Its far from perfect and I think there are more important issues than whether or not a sentence should begin with but. BTW, but in this case does not offset anything, nor does it imply contradiction. It is simply used to contrast two different situations that occurred at the same time, so there's no problem with it.

The section titles Nik proposed read like a fixed agenda within which there is little scope to write anything like an accurate biography. SCHISM and INTERREGNUM might be technically accurate. Unfortunately they sound like the titles of B-grade thrillers, and anyway, I don't think those events were of such Earth shattering importance that they require a separate section. Your preference for chronological section titles is far more sensible.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your POV appears to be "pro-Rawat". Since you welcome the discussion of your POV, could you please describe your history with the subject? Are you a student or how did you come to edit this topic, which accounts for two-thirds of your contributions to Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not a student. You will find the rest of the information you have asked for in this discussion with Msalt[[17]] and there's more on my talk page. I read the Cagan biography and went to youtube. The interviews with Mr Rawat are especially interesting and his talks are very insightful, IMO. My first ever discussion of any substance on Wikipedia was with you[[18]], in my opinion less than welcoming and not particularly helpful. Perhaps you hadn't noticed. My disagreements with you mostly involve civil liberties issues. So Will, what's your history with this subject and how did you come to edit this topic?--Zanthorp (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the subject's comments are "very insightful" an example of expressing a positive opinion. Seeking to remove negative material about the subject is another example. It's OK to have a POV on a topic, but pointing to the POVs of others while claiming not to have any is likely to be challenged and lead to discussion like this one. I suggest that we all stick to discussing the topic and leave out our speculations on each others' motivations or biases. (In answer to Zanthorp's question, I'd never really heard of the subject before reading about it here. I got involved in editing the article because it was dominated by a trio of editor. Though they are now prohibited from editing the topic, their legacy remains and requires furhter editing to correct.)

I'll start a new thread on the issues raised by user:Titanium Dragon, since this own has gotten tangled up with other concerns.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Zanthorp, Will's proposed section headings are very neutral. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a very sensible idea for section headings. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and renamed the headings, with some laterations from the above proposal to make the sections reasonable length while trying to keep related material together. Some text will still need to be moved up or down.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom remedies

Pergamino (talk · contribs) was blocked today after having been found to be a sock account of Jossi (talk · contribs). I'd like to take the opportunity to remind everyone engaged in this topic that there are several ArbCom-imposed restrictions. The primary one is the year old probation which requires us all avoid "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty." All editors are restricted from reverting more than once a week, and two editors are prohibited from any editing of the topic until April 2010. There have already been enough blocks and bans. Let's all keep our cool, obey the regular and special rules, and stick to improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadadhara, Introducing myself

Hello, all. I thought I’d introduce myself because I’d like to help out with improvements to the Prem Rawat article. I am a student of Mr. Rawat, having received his gift of Knowledge on May 2, 1982 in a Santa Monica ashram. Many people have received Knowledge over the years that I’ve been practicing and listening to Maharaji, some have stayed on and continue to attend events with him and some have not. I have benefitted immensely from practicing Knowledge. The four simple techniques take my outgoing senses and help me to invert them to go inside and experience what is there. I continue to listen to him because I enjoy his wisdom, humor and practical viewpoint of life. As a matter of fact, I was fortunate to be able to attend an event with him last Sunday in Thousand Oaks, California, and was once again impressed with some of his unique and pertinent observations. I am not hypnotized or brain washed by Mr. Rawat or his gift of Knowledge and I freely practice the meditation and listen to him because it is enjoyable to do so. I’ve experienced much peace and love over the years by doing so.

Anyway, I have no agenda here other than to make sure that things written about him paint him in a fair and balanced way so I would like the opportunity of discussing some of the issues about him and his Knowledge with some of you who are participating as editors here. I signed up as a Wiki editor awhile back but I’ve been busy with school and other things in my life until recently so I thought it was time to give my 2 cents worth. I look forward to talking with you all in a spirit of getting to the truth about this man and his message.

Cheers, Gadahara69.105.255.105 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shifted the references list to the bottom - new editors please note this is the prefered location for references. Wowest - perhaps you would consider removing your response to Gadahara, it certainly does not seem to fit with the requirement to assume good faith. At this point we have no reason to believe Gadahara is not going to abide by the limitations placed on this article. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• user:Gadadhara, welcome. Please remember to log in when editing, so your username will show automatically. As a newcomer to this article you should read the headers at the top of this page - the article is under probation and other special restrictions.   Will Beback  talk  16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To Gadadhara, a belated welcome. This is an interesting and very active topic. Participation is a great way to learn about how Wikipedia works. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Emancipation

There has been extensive discusion in the past about the details of Rawat's marriage and emancipation. First, the emancipation was a result of the marriage, not a precondition. If he'd received parental permission to be married it would have also resulted in emancipation. The decision of the court was to allow him to marry without parental permission. Second, the emancipation is not an important detail and doesn't belong in the lede at all. It had no effect on any aspect of the subject's life that I've seen. He was not in legal control of the DLM before or after, and the properties and vehicles he used weren't in his name. It's not mentioned in reliable sources as being important. Lastly, the idea is that the lede should reflect the text, not the other way around. Therefore, I reverted the undiscussed change to the article concerning emancipation and removed it from the lede.[19]   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This seemed to me to be a minor edit and minor correction that did not require discussion. It isn't a major issue, IMO, but its nice to see that the eventual result of my effort has been an improvement to the article. And, I am impressed by your understanding of CA law pertaining to the emancipation of minors. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are few parts of this article that haven't been researched carefully and discussed at length. The emancipation issue was a big deal to one of the previous editors here. We consulted not just one, but two(!) lawyers. I've learned a lot from editing Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Will's sentiment here. Just about every detail of Prem Rawat's life has been done to death here. It leaves this article in an interesting position in respect of the Wikipedia principle "anyone can edit". It still holds true in theory, but in practice for this particular article, there is very little room for someone to successfully make even minor changes without deep knowledge of a) the subject and b)the history of the previous debates here. If you'll forgive me for going off-topic for a moment, I often wonder the implications of this type of situation will mean for Wikipedia in general as it matures and reaches saturation of biographies. Will we be left with fighting RfDs around new entries (see Britain's got talent for an example) on one hand, and more and more stale, detailed debating around older entries? --Savlonn (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Just about every detail of Prem Rawat's life has been done to death here." Not so Savlonn, there are glaring omissions. Most notably regarding the messianic nature of his claims to being the one and only living "Perfect Master". In the 1970s, this is what brought him to the public eye, and on which his notoriety was founded.

The article's reticence in addressing this is, possibly, a residue from the era when Jossi/Pergamino, Momento and Rumiton (all now blocked) managed somehow to impose their own protective-of-Rawat-POV on a supposedly encyclopedic work of reference. Rawat's afficionados may be embarrassed by that era of Rawat's history, but I hope Wikipedia doesn't have to submit to such revisionist tendencies in the long term.

Forgive my somewhat chippy attitude, but I've seen a lot of worthy editors give up the wikighost (as it were) in fighting that war. Let's hope that, in the future, good articles will not be so compromised by POV-pushers with an excess of time on their hands Revera (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For direct quotes from Rawat re messianic claims of Perfect Master, see: http://ex-premie.org/gallery/god_claims.htm Revera (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The context of my comment was not about the current content of the main article, but around what has already being discussed in detail. It was in reply to Will' statement that "There are few parts of this article that haven't been researched carefully and discussed at length." Your particular example was discussed in detail during the mediation last year. User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat--Savlonn (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you for a link to that discussion, please? I hope the inference isn't that the absence of detail about the messianic claims of the "Perfect Master" should have been deliberately omitted? Revera (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here's one detailed discussion around becoming known as a Satguru or Perfect Master . User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal4 I think there are several more, but I don't have the time to go through the mediation archive at the momment. To answer your last query, I am not inferring anything at all about what should or should not be included in the article. I am merely observing that just about any aspect of this biography that can be discussed, has been discussed. --Savlonn (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Inferring? The grammar-hound in me insists that you meant to say "implying" - but that's by the by.

Unfortunately the link you gave: [[20]] doesn't work for me - the page just hangs.

Discussion pages are one thing. That a major aspect of Rawat's history is not currently represented in the article itself - well, that's my concern. Revera (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's weird - the link I entered works fine for me. Your link is missing "User_talk:" at the start. I suggest you do go there and a have a read (you'll need to click on "show archive") as it will give you some context of a key reason why this isn't inlcuded; a lack of consensus. You'll see from the number of attempted drafts that the easy bit is that saying that something should be included; the tricky bit is agreeing reliable, high quality sources and gaining consensus on the wording to ensure neutrality. --Savlonn (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(belated comment) Will is right, Zanthorp. I remember editors took some trouble over Rawat's emancipated status at the time and we were very pleased to finally get it right. --JN466 12:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Info appreciated :) Except for obvious vandalism, minor grammatical corrections ( I read quickly and tend to miss most of those anyway. ) in future I will discuss any proposed edits here. I am concerned that other editors do not always demonstrate the same cautious approach. The result at the teachings of PR page recently was a minor edit war. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, most of us have been editing this topic for over a year, and I believe you've said you have no particular knowledge of the topic. So there's a difference in the familiarity with sources and issues. As for the editing disupte at Teachings of Prem Rawat, that dispute started when you deleted sourced material without any prior discussion, if I recall correctly.[21] That dispute involved an editor who was acting in bad faith and is now blocked. Let's hope there won't be anything like that again.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have this right. The intro says he was married in 1973. The article has him married in 1974 in Colorado.

Also, unregistered user, ip 67.169.70.227, has added the aberrant sentence It has been called a cult. [7] to the intro without discussion. Factually correct? Yes, but also neutrally called an NRM by scholarly sources. The reference added for that one is a Rick Ross promotional web site, a questionable source at best, so I will go ahead and revert that pending consensus on a neutral, NPOV entry. --Zanthorp (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the mistake about the wedding. It looks like this was the edit that changed the date.[22] I'll fix it.

The "cult" issue is being discussed below.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

KEYS TO CITIES

On May 23 2009, at the invitation of Mayor Tain-Tsair Hsu of Tainan, Taiwan, Prem Rawat, known as Maharaji, attended a ceremony where he was awarded the Golden Key to the city as well as an emblem of the Sword Lion, a symbol of the cultural capital of Taiwan. The ceremony was held at the National Tainan Living Arts Center. Over 800 people attended including guests of the mayor, dignitaries from other towns in Taiwan, as well as international and local students of Prem Rawat.

News that I, a follower, copied from an official Prem Rawat source, and therefore “propaganda” and “unreliable”.

One key to add to the keys to the following cities: 1) New York City, New York; 2) New Orleans, Louisiana; 3) Oakland, California; 4) Kyoto, Japan; 5) Detroit, Michigan; 6) Miami Beach, Florida; 7) Miami, Florida. 8) plus a nomination as “Illustrious Citizen,” Quito, Ecuador.

Have these mayors been brainwashed by followers (also brainwashed in their turn)? Seems to me hard to believe, but we choose what we like to believe. How and why we choose what to believe or not is an interesting subject.

How many keys to cities does one person (or Prem Rawat) need to be considered important enough to be mentioned by Wikipedia? How many by anti-Prem editors? Pedrero. Sorry, my signature does not work properly, nor my computer, nor myself (joke). --88.14.4.202 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh yes, it did, my computer too, and perhaps myself too (another joke, both free).

It may or may not be propaganda, but without a source listed, it certainly is unreliable. List your source please. If necessary, you may also want to look over this BLP policy (which I'm fairly certain wasn't written by a secret cabal of anti-Prem editors). And FYI, who are these people that I see continuing to be referred to as "anti-Prem editors"? I certainly hope you aren't just using that as a blanket-phrase for people that don't agree with you. You could probably paint me with the "Anti-Revisionist History" brush if you had to though. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple way to judge the relevance - did any independent media source commit a notable degree of journalistic resources to reporting any of the awards ? The answer is I believe No! In which case we do not need to concern ourselves further with this side issue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NEWS about TPRF

“TPRF has just been awarded a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator, America’s largest independent evaluator of charities. According to their letter, “Receiving four out of a possible four stars indicates that your organization excels, as compared to other charities in America, in allocating and growing your finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible.”

Of course there will be strong opposition, by we know who, to including the above, branding it as propaganda. Why they do this is something they do not even know themselves. But I do. For a part of Wikipedia editors, whatever is positive about Prem Rawat is “propaganda” and whatever is negative “important facts to be included”. And Wikipedia has allowed this for years and still seems to find it fair. Fantastic. Pedrero, my signature does not work with my new Spanish Email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.1.4 (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great for the TPRF. But so far as I'm aware, the subject has nothing to do with managing it. If he has some control over its conduct then we should add that to the article. But since it appears that it is simply named for him and promotes his message without his involvement, I don't see how its fiscal management is really relevant here.   Will Beback  talk  16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Will's right, that info belongs in the TPRF article. And stop disparaging other editors IP. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Too bad only the TPRF-article had been dumped along the way...--Rainer P. (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Beback said that "If he has some control over its conduct then we should add that to the article." On page 273 of "Peace Is Possible" by Cagen, Linda Pascotto is quoted as saying "All I did was start it up and M made it clear there would be no activity without his consent." This clearly demonstrates that Prem Rawat is in charge of TPRF and the 4-star rating should be included in the article. Here's the link to show the rating--> http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... rgid=11810 Gadadhara (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That book is not a reliable source, and even if it were that statement is too vague for use to really say that he has control over it. The consent may have been a one-time approval rather than day-to-day oversight. Thanks for finding that though. There are a lot of reliable sources listed in the current "references" section.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I almost missed this, stuck up here as it is. I do not agree that the statement is too vague. Its quite clear: no consent from Rawat, no activity, and that is consistent with sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of 15. Also, Cagan names her source, Pascotto, so the quote or paraphrase can be attributed to Pascotto. Early this year I read the Steve Crossins discussion pages, links provided by Will. There was no consensus. The earlier discussion did reach the consensus that Cagan was acceptable for dates and facts. I see no problem at all including this in the article. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible we might devote a short paragraph to the TPRF, in the context of other changes to the article, in which case its ratings and finances would be relevant. But separately, there's no consensus that Cagan's book is a reliable source. We discussed this extensively last year, and I'm not interested in rehashing it again unless there's some new point.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a short paragraph would be fine. Nik has raised some points. I'll do my best to address those.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, you asked about ratings and finances. This is impressive [23]--Zanthorp (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the same source that Pedrero referenced in the first place. I'm not as easily impressed as you are. The rating is based on two factors: the amount spent on salaries and fundraising, and the growth in contributions. Since the staff are apparently volunteers, they get the highest rating for efficiency. And since the contributions are shown as having grown three years in a row, they get a high rating there too. The ratings show nothing about whether the charity accomplished anything wortwhile. Anyway, I added a sentence about it.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Zanthorp's claim that "sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of 15" seems like extreme WP:SYN. In any case including minor details about an organisation in a BLP, when a separate article exists for the organisation, is non encyclopaedic, unless the argument is that TPRF should not have a speparate article; in general information should not be repeated across articles. A useful comparison to judge the worth of commentary on TPRF in the Rawat article is the Bill Gates article in which a section is devoted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - there the fact that it is Bill Gates' money and that Bill Gates devotes his time and effort to that Foundation is explicit [24], which in turn justifies the inclusion of information about the organisation in the bio article. Unless there is some evidence the Prem Rawat actually does something in terms of running TPRF, rather than merely being a 'name' there is no reason to include any organisational detail in his bio. All efforts have been gone through regarding Cagan as source including RfC - no consensus has ever been achieved that allows Cagan to be used for other than non contested references (birth dates etc), simply rehashing the argument that greater use of Cagan should be made, is bordering on Tendentious Editing. As to the Steve Crossin mediation - the only reason that there was not a far more broadly achieved consensus (progress was made in a number of areas) is that three editors, two now topic banned for a year and one permanently blocked for their behaviour in editing this very article, were engage in a POV war. The recent ArbCom decission identified that the Rawat articles are in need of improvement, this talk page might therefore be expected to be concerned with proposals for new text strictly focussed on the subject and related to established sources, and not on the introduction of extraneous material or the justification of positions held by banned and blocked editors.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got me! According to the article he was 16, not 15. The text reads, "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement." The source is Downton. What is extreme WP:SYN?

I don't see any tendentious editing here. Your point about active involvement is reasonable though. I remember reading something about that. I'll see what I can find.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Downton text doesn't match "sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of ...." so either it's synthesised with some other source or it's OR or POV, and in any case we can't project Downton's pre 1979 judgement forward to encompass Rawat's current relationship with TPRF, that's certainly original research or POV. There is also the very obvious point that a 16 year old could not take on the legal obligations that "taking control" would entail, if you read the section on Charisma you will get an idea of the complications entailed in your proposal, Pilarzyk is particularly helpful in this respect and his writing on Rawat and the DLM is worth reading in full.

Regarding Tendentious Editing, endlessly re-hashing the same argument as a means of avoiding consensus is certainly Tendentious behaviour, especially so when the same rejected arguments have been made by banned and blocked editors. The status of Cagan as a source is clear, Cagan is suitable for non controversial references only, anything that looks to be exceptional, self serving to a POV etc is unlikely to gain a consensus for use, the exception might be where an opinion is directly attributable. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nik, I disagree about Cagan. Based on our extensuive review of its accuracy, it does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than the author's opinions, which aren't notable enough to include. We left the existing citations to her work in order to avoid disruption, but sooner of later they should all be removed.

On the point about involvement in TPRF, Downton's book describing events in the 1970s has nothing to do with the TRPF, founded in the 2000s.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, you are of course right about Cagan, all these old arguments had me slipping into a time warp of an agreed, but not consensus position.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Growing ?

Editor IP 94.194.214.37 has made a change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=296712876&oldid=296186757 altering "new religious movement" to "Cult". The reference for this section is Geaves who uses neither NRM or Cult but "group". As we have no other source for "fastest growing" and Geaves quotes no data to support the claim, I suggest removing this element because its quantitative character requires some supporting data - how many per month/year - which month/year - for how many months/years etc.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[5][6] [original version]

That deserves scrutiny. I'm going to revert it pending a review here. If I recall correctly, There's a source for "fastest growing", but it isn't either of those cited. Lemme look.   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Larson writes:

• In the early seventies, Guru Maharaj Ji commanded one of the largest and fastest growing followings of all imported cult leaders. [Larson:1982]

I think there's another one too.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Larson is fine, there's a complete difference between saying "one of the largest and fastest" and saying categorically that it was the fastest, which without any evidence to back it up, borders on being an exceptional claim . The only reservation I have is that Larson is specific to the US, and the text of the Rawat article should therefore reflect that; Geaves refered to the US and UK, but I don't think there is any data that would support any claims about the rate of increase in the levels of UK adherence to Guru Maharaj Ji, compared to growth in comparable groups - TM, Hari Krishna etc. There's another rather clumsy edit by an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=296732959&oldid=296725997 Larson uses the 'C' word and Melton references Larson in that context so perhaps it would be appropriate to quote Larson directly on that point, which would address the IP editors' concerns.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Guru Maharaj Ji, the boy his followers call lord of the universe, king of kings and the one perfect master on earth at this time — who has inspired one of the fastest-growing religious movements in this country today — sat on a gold velvet sofa and told a visitor, "I'm just a 15-year-old kid."
  • "I'm just a 15-year-old-kid,' Maharaj Ji says" Blau, July 31, 1973

• [Sociologist Peter L Berger] observes that those who embrace therapeutic, political action and sectarian groups — "far out religious groups" — have a tendency to join several in a row. These people have spawned a counterculture, and in it grew the roots of dozens of spiritual cults that have their seed in Eastern mysticism. Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission is by far the fastest growing of these spiritual organizations.
  • "Boy prophet reaps man-size profits" MALCOLM N. CARTER SEPTEMBER Z3.1973

• Twenty-seven-year-old Michael Bergman who left his Job as public Information officer for the New York City Sanitation Department to join the guru, and quickly became Executive Financial Director, told me: "We're the fastest growing corporation in America. Between January and June of 1973, we grew 800 per cent. Our business practices are sound; our accounting practices are sound; our credit and collateral are sound. Dun & Bradstreet has all our financial information." Most of the money is donated by premies, many of whom come from affluent families and are urged to give up their worldly goods when they join the movement.
  • "Oz in the Astrodome" By Ted Morgen December 9, 1973 New York Times

• Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudey Shri Sant Ji Maharaj - the 15-year-old so-called boy god arrived in Britain yesterday to a welcome from 800 devotees who thronged London Airport. Ten thousand more - from Britain, Europe and the U.S. - are expected to gather tomorrow in a 'Divine City' under canvas at Alexandra Palace, North London, for a three-day rally at which they will hope for a chance to prostrate themselves before their 'perfect master.' For his part, the luxury-loving holy boy, Guru Maharaj Ji, for short, hopes to double his British following of 6,000 - doubtless boosting the amount they pay for the privilege of seeing the Divine Light. His Divine Light Mission, which claims a world-wide following of six million and the fastest growth of any religion today, already has a capital of £100,000 in Britain, including a luxurious £40,000 London HQ and a fleet of 36 vehicles, one of them a £9,800 Rolls used only by the boy god.
  • "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream... and the good things of life" by Richard Herd, Daily Mail, July 12, 1973

• Prem Rawat has been successful since he left India in 1971, establishing his teachings in over eighty countries, and his original vehicle Divine Light Mission was described as the fastest growing new religious movement in the West
  • "Globalisation, charisma, innovation, and tradition" Geaves 2006

There's one for UK too. I don't know it there's any point to saying that it claimed to be the fasest growing corporation in America for th first half of 1973. Maybe in the DLM article.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From all this material I see no justification for using the controversial "c-word" in the lede-section. Obviously most scholars have systematically avoided it.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separable issues here. The matter of the DLM having been called [one of] the fastest growing cult/NRM/spiritual group/corporation is one part. I think that is well established now. It is repeated often enough that it is a notable characterization. "Cult" is a problematic term. It is also another notable characterization. The list of scholars and others that have used the term in relation to the subject is fairly long, I expect a dozen or more. See Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of for some excerpts that use in that regard. One that is to the pont is this, possibly written by the eminent Eileen Barker in 1983:

• The term "cult" is probably the most widely used expression in everyday English for referring to new religious movements which have been at the center of controversies in the West for the past decade or so. The best-known movements include ... the Divine Light Mission.

I think it's appropriate to say that the subject was regarded as a "cult leader" in the 1970s. Now it's true that scholars have shifted away from using the term now, but back in the 1970s and '80s they did so, and most of the scholarship and reporting on the subject are from that period. So we should reflect both of the common usages. I suggest that we change:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[5][6] It has been called a cult. [7]

to:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing cults or new religious movements in the US and UK.[5][6][7]

That covers both terms, and is also a better summary of the sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that should rather be placed into the DLM-article, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have something like that over there. The subject achieved fame as the leader of the DLM, so it's important to include a description of it in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  15:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the word 'cult' in quotation marks is the right usage for this article, as it is an accurate reflection of terminology used at the time most of the source material was written. The use of quotation marks provides the implication that it is not being used as a direct statement of current usage of the term. There are many examples of where a term or phrase has become considered less politically correct over time. However, to maintain academic integrity, the original phrase or wording has been used with quotation marks and sometimes followed by bracketed used of the current terminology. --Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When I read the cult article, it was interesting to see that the term 'New Religious Movement', whilst being promoted as poltically correct, has not been fully accepted in general usage as a replacement for 'cult'. As such, I would rather see bracketed usage of 'New Religious Movement' rather than Cult/New New Religious Movement, as the terms are not completely equivilient and thus not directly interchangeable.--Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that much of the source material on Prem Rawat is written from the context of the 1970s 'cult era' I just can't see this article being an accurate, neurtral reflection of the subject without this terminology used. --Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As such, my suggestion for the above statement is:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (new religious movement) in the US and UK.[5][6][7]--Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn's proposal is sound,it would be absurdly revisionist to start editing out 'cult' from long standing sources because the word is deemed by some people to be offensive, it is not a slang term or exclusively negative in connotation and is a normal part of every day English usage. However if we are looking at amending the lede with regard to Divine Light Mission references, I think a more substantial edit is required. I've made a proposal for a new lede on the DLM talk page and I think those changes should also feed through to this article. The current DLM article is historically confused and the current lede is unreferenced, the confusion in that article is I believe currently in evidence in the Prem Rawat article.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn's version looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Savlonn's reasoning, but if more neutrality is required, the sentence could be changed to "In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (now referred to as new religious movements) in the US and UK.". Having said that, the "now referred to as" may be more wordy than we'd like, but I would like to see the link to NRM remain. (PS. yup, I'm still here! :) ) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep - that's even better IMO Maelefique. I was also tossing up whether to include a 'now known as' conditional, but didn't because I thought it was a bit wordy. However, I now agree that it really helps articulate that we are using historically accurate terminology, without the intention of being derogatory. I'm also not sure about referring to DLM here, as it shifts emphasis away from the personal biography, but that is different discussion. --Savlonn (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---Insert to retain subject flow--- I appreciate the intent, but Maelefique's version is horrible. It implies that all reliable sources now reject the use of the term cult (not the case) and all groups now refered to as NRMs could previously have been termed 'cult', which is also not true, there were/are many NRMs which are not cultic in nature. Even more significantly there's no evidence that the sources that refered to the DLM as being a cult would have ever used the phrase NRM in relation to DLM. Having seen numerous versions of a long lede being attempted I'm now of the view that the first paragraph as it stands should be the lede in its entirety, with the remaining (and weirdly balanced) three paragraphs/sentences incoprorated into the body, if for some reason the material isn't there already.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. Having read your argument I do now agree with your point that the wording could imply that all cults are NRMs and vice versa, which is not the case. The intent was for (New religious movement) to be specific clarification for this case, and not a general one. Also, NRM is intended as a clarification of 'cult', and a not a replacement. I'll change it to my version as it has greater consensus. I take it from Maelefique's comment above that he is ok with my version, even though he preferred the one he used. --Savlonn (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Savlon's reasoning. We don't refer to the Civil Rights Movement as the fastest growing group of nigger lovers in the US during the 1960s because many American's used the term nigger lover at that time, and because the term is still in use today. Similarly, we should exercise great caution using the pejorative term cult. Its fair to say that everyone is aware of the negative connotation associated with nigger and issues of racial intolerance associated with its use. That is not generally the case with the word cult. Yes, most readers will understand that cult = negative. But I think its fair to say that most readers are not aware of the inseparable media bias issue. Inevitably, anything branded a cult is associated with Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and so on. The application of such a term is quite inappropriate here.

After reading that Time article we discussed previously, I started doing some research on sub-standard journalism and media bias, and came up with this[[25]].

"This type of bias is often seen with reporting on new religious movements. It is often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is a negative and sensationalized report by the media.... According to the Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th edition), the news media play an influential role in the general public's perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favor sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates (Beckford, 1985; Richardson, Best, & Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993)."

The NPOV term appropriate for the lede is new religious movement, not cult. If you want to refer to media use of the term, that should be done within the body of the article where an appropriate reference to media bias can be included. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scholars, inclusing those you've quoted approvingly, have used the term "cult", and so the comparison to the term nigger lovers is inapt and appears to be a strawman. The simple fact is that the subject's movement was widely characterized as a cult in both popular and scholarly sources. I don't think that a discusion of generic media bias is appropriate for this article, unless it is bias about the subject himself. The articles on New religious movement and Cult are fine places to investigate the details about the use of the term. For this article, we should accurately reflect what the sources say about the subject, and the proposal by Savlonn does that.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that one cannot fight spirit with words. If neutral editors feel a need to mention the word c-u-l-t for historical reasons and manage to develop a neutral formulation (and religiously avoiding the word seems somehow a bit cramped), I would not object. I find it a little problematic having it in the lede, as it is a historic item when the subject is quite contemporary.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the definition of "cult" in Merriam-Webster. Of the five definitions, only one is negative, the other four are neutral, meaning that that 80% of the dictionary definitions for that word are neutral in character. Looks like an accurate and neutral word to me. Cla68 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Rainer P. means by "historic item". The term was used by a newspaper in 2007, and by the The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography in 2003. In 1999, the movement was featured in a book titled Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion by scholar Marc Galanter, and also in another book titled Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America by scholar J. Gordon Melton in 1992. If 17 years ago is such ancient history that we can't use sources from that period then we'll have to make major revisions to the article. the fact is that the term "cult" has been applied from the 1970s to the 2000s to movements lead by the subject. This is a biography that covers the subject's entire lifer history, not just the last four years.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say ancient. Historic insofar, as there has been a development from the 70s, the golden age of the “cults”, to what it is now. This is certainly history. There are reasons why scholars nowadays hesitate to use the word cult in this context. This should be cognizable from the article. No need for major revisions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision clearly recognised that substantial work needed to be done on the article, so major revision is required. Cult is not a banned word amonst all academics even if a grouping of self described "Religious Scholars" has developed its own standard of 'correctness'. The ICSA [26] has a substantial list of scholars who clearly have no difficulty with the word cult [27]so perhaps we can dispose of tis specious argument once and for all. The 'historic' context in respect of Prem Rawat relates directly to his 'notability', it is precisely because of the controvery that involved the use of the word cult, and Rawat's claimed leadership of the DLM that Rawat is at all notable, without that early 1970s controversy, there would be nothing to say about Rawat beyond the Elan Vital/TPRF promotional content.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely happy with the article either, albeit evidently coming from a POV opposite to yours. But I am glad about any working modus vivendi. The International Cultic Studies Association ICSA, formerly the American Family Foundation, describes itself as an "interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments." (Wikipedia), and they carry "Cult" in their heading. Not what you would call a neutral source, but with a definite anti-cult slant. They created one Margret Singer Award! I respect their motives, and I agree on exposing zealotry and whatnot, but I would not use them for encyclopedic purposes. And history is more than mass media coverage, may sometimes even point the other way, that's why it's necessary.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I was not proposing the ICSA as a source (although it meets all the conditions of WP:RS) - the point is that there are 182 academics listed on the ICSA people/organisation pages, an unequivocal demonstration that 'cult' is not an unacceptable word in academia. The argument that cult is an unacceptable word in academia has been made consistently for nearly five years on these talk pages - it is a spurious argument and does not in anyway support the censoring of Reliable Sources. The opinions of "pro" NRM sources are well represented in the references for this article, if references are to be assessed on the positioning of sources then the "pros" will have to be edited out along with the "antis". That of course is not Wikipedia policy, which is instead to provide a balance of perspectives with genuine differences presented as such without synthesis. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If we tone down Zanthorp’s example to the word ‘Negro’, we can see similar examples to my phraseology, such as here: [28] Bishop Henry McNeil Turner, Garnett’s contemporary and a white-looking black Georgia state legislator, who strived to improve conditions for formerly enslaved Africans both in America and in Africa, and who said that God was “a Negro” (Black)… This clearly articulates that in this example, the useage of the word Negro is equivalent to the non-racist contemporary usage (today it would probably be ‘African-American’ in parenthesis).--Savlonn (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

By saying the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (new religious movements), we are also clearly articulating that we are not intending it be considered in same light as (say) the Jim Jones cult, which would certainly not be considered a New Religious Movement. As others here have pointed out, the word ‘cult’ is still in academic use and currently has several meanings, only some of which are pejorative. The sources for this article demonstrate the fundamental historical fact that the DLM was considered to be a cult and thus Prem Rawat a cult leader in the early 1970s, before the use of the term broadened to also become associated with mass murderers such as Jim Jones. The suggested wording prevents the term from being interpreted as such, whilst maintaining the historical accuracy that Prem Rawat was a cult leader as described by the academic sources.--Savlonn (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW - when I wrote the above, I didn't realise that Maelefique had already changed the lede, which I have now altered to my version as per discussion above. I would have preferred more time for discussion before changing the lede. --Savlonn (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "cult" can still be applied to Prem Rawat because newer reliable sources have categorized him as such. That's the point of using "cult" instead of "new religous movement" (NRM) -- that's the term the sources use. It also ought not to be put in quotes because it's still an English word that is in common usage and the manual of style wouldn't support that, imo, and there's just no reason to be so afraid of the term. Also, the term "new religious movement" hasn't superceded the term "cult," at all, except by certain scholars of NRMs/cults, who want to be politically correct. For instance, Jim Jones, Koresh, and the more famous destructive cult leaders were also leaders of new religious movements. Some scholars simply don't like the word and that's why the term is poorly explained in the article of that name on Wikipedia. Using the term has nothing to do with comparing one group to another, either, because that assumes that the usage of the term is always a personal attack or a pejorative. It's a descriptive term that has meaning in this context that is backed up by many, many sources. Also, (this is for everyone) please don't use the term "nigger" or "nigger lovers" again. The way it was used here was not an apt comparison at all, and the term is extremely offensive to Americans, myself included. It's simply not necessary. I don't think I'll be contributing much more than this but I had to break my wiki-leave to comment on this particular issue because it's so important to be well-informed about this article subject, as well as the general subject of nrms/cults, including trhe controversies over the usage of terms and the history of the the controversies before jumping in and muddying the waters here. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The references (5. ^ a b c Geaves (2006) 6. ^ Melton (1992), p. 217 ) may not support edits by either Maelefique or Savlonn. Geaves, as quoted above, calls it "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" and we need to check Melton's wording. I was unable to locate that one. Page 217 is not available at Google Books. Its worth noting that most of the refs quoted above do not use the word "cult."　... one of the fastest-growing religious movements in this country today; the fastest growing of these spiritual organizations; the fastest growing corporation in America, are examples.

Most editors appear to be greatly underestimating the stigmatization associated with the term 'cult' both during and after the 1970s. Concerning the 1960s and 70s proliferation of NRMs, van Driel and Richardson write, "Utilization of the concept "cult," with its concomitant pejorative connotations, has served to stigmatize these groups." [[29]]

Savlonn assumes that by placing the terms cult and NRM together, the reader will understand that a more benign meaning is associated with 'cult,' and that we are not placing the subject of this article in the same category as Jim Jones, for example. This reasoning is illogical because we can make no assumptions about readers' understanding of these terms. NRM is a neutral term, and that is what we should be using in the lede, not 'cult,' which is a non-neutral, loaded term. Most academic articles that I have seen so far do not refer to the DLM as a cult. The use of the word (and I doubt that it is universal) by journalists has been mentioned in the article, but without reference to media bias. Again I put it to you that the pejorative term 'cult' has no place in the lede. It belongs in the article with some appropriate reference to media bias. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference fixed - Larson 1982 (page number needs confirmation) but otherwise as noted by Willbeback at the top of this section. Zanthorp your arguments take no account of what anyone elese has written in this section, including points made by at least one uninvolved editor. The subject's notability is intimately tied to the growth of the movement that promoted him in the early 1970s, those sources that use "fastest growing", as apposed to the moderated "one of the fastest growing", are making an exceptional claim which requires support by data to ensure reliability. Larson provides the usable formulation and is specific in his use of the word cult - not NRM. Again you seem to wish to avoid the limitations imposed by WP:SYN. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Bob Larson article. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me, to put it mildly.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the DLM was the fastest growing, or one of the fastest growing movements is a moot point. I'm quite happy to let you and other editors sort that one out. I have no opinion one way or the other. The issue and points I have raised refer to stigmatization of the subject through the use of the term 'cult.' As a general principle I think we should use neutral wording in keeping with Wikipedia policies, and that applies to all BLPs, not just this one. Reporting on the use of non-neutral, ( and arguably) sensationalistic terms by elements of the media should be done within the body of the article. In effect you and other editors have legitimized the use of the term 'cult,' and stigmatized the subject by reporting the term as a fact. This is not NPOV and such use is not commensurate with BLVP policy. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If the sentence goes "the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing ...." it must read "new religious movements" as per Geaves.

Adding "cult" to the cited Geaves quote is WP:SYN which states "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". Therefore the sentence must remain true to the Geaves quote or removed completely, which I have done. Terry Macro (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Terrymacro's edit leaves the sentence unreferenced - and appears to be an attempt at edit warring over what is or is not an RS. Some explanation of why Larson is unacceptable would seem to be required. The Geaves reference is diffident about "the fastest growing" - which is precisly not what the consensus was.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The sources given for "cult" in Maelifique's edit do not support the word "cult".

The actions of Maelifique in this edit is verging on an edit war. Geaves calls it "the fastest growing new religious movement". And Melton page 217 makes no claim about its growth but calls DLM "a flourishing American organization". Melton also avoids the word "cult". Galantner talking about DLM writes "my own research experience with the Divine Light Mission, a Hindu-oriented new religious movement". While at the airport today I noticed a new book on cults (will try and track down the title) - it does not even mention DLM or Prem Rawat etc. If independent researchers do not classify Prem Rawat as the leader of a cult then doing so in Wiki would put Wiki into the extremist fringe view. Making DLM a "cult" at this topic is an attempt to denigrate a living person, and there is certainly no universal or widespread agreement that DLM was a cult. Larson is certainly not a reliable and suitable reference source: "Larson was often heard performing exorcisms of callers on the air". Terry Macro (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the term "cult" is such an inflammatory word to many here, seems to be creating an edit war and heating up the discussions, I suggest dispensing with the the term "cult" in the lead and only using "new religious movement." In the way of history, for those here unaware of previous discussions, the three pro-Rawat editors (who are now banned) argued strongly for years against even using NRM in the lead, which was problematic because then the lead also never has accurately described what makes Prem Rawat notable. This article has gone through two ArbComs so it's important for everyone to cool down and think rationally.

For those editos who are not aware of this, and to provide some background, Prem Rawat has always claimed (and continues to claim) that he does not teach or promote a religion, religious doctrine, spirituality, or philosophy, thus past objections to using "religious" in any form to describe him. All of that said, the word "cult" can and should be used where appropriate in the body of the article when sources use it. To replace "cult" with "NRM" when sources use "cult" would not be practicing neutrality, Wiki-style, imo, but would be endeavoring to be way too politically correct (PC). Additionally, newcomers to this article ought to also be aware that Prem Rawat would most likely not be notable enough in the present day to warrant a BLP article here were it not for his past fame in the 70s, when he was a teenager and first traveled from India to the United Kingdom and United States. I also caution folks here to avoid arguing over reliable press/media sources that describe Prem Rawat in a way that doesn't suit their sensibilities, by calling such sources "tabloids." That is not neutral editing. If anyone here uses the word "tabloid" to describe reliable sources such as The New York Times or Time magazine, well, I think it would be most unhelpful because often in the past editors have used the term "tabloid" to discredit reliable sources even when requests for comments on those sources were deemed to be reliable by Wiki policy. That word "tabloid" has caused great contention, personal attacks, and much incivility on these talk pages. So please don't do it! I hope this helps. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sylviecyn, in that NRM is not a good descriptive term for what happened/happens around Prem Rawat. He stated himself that he does not propagate a religion. But he surely never said that he established a cult, even though some signs of that may have characterized the appearance of his following, as seems to be a given attribute of human nature under certain social condition. Geaves states that Rawat continually and successfully has counteracted such tendencies. I think, meanwhile you find more elements of cultish behaviour in structures like Wikipedia, or, with due respect, in EPO. Cultish behaviour happens among human beings under certain conditions, when it is not purposefully counteracted. Maybe it serves a need in people at times. It has got nothing to do with Prem Rawat, who has been doing his best not to be a victim of the cult trap and to be a model for his students to do the same. That may be a reason why the unhesitating use of the word cult disturbs some people, who are familiar with the issue. NRM may be a little misleading, but at least it is not offensive. Cult is offensive and wrong, the way it has been presented here.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you just have a different definition of a cult, can you let us know what your definition of "cult" is? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, who knows. Understanding is to some extent indelibly a very personal phenomenon, reflecting even in the bureaucracy of WP. You can't help it. It makes the Wiki-process live and interesting.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P., you misunderstood me and you are misstating what I said. I didn't say that what happens around Prem Rawat isn't a cult or cultic. Here, it doesn't matter what editors think or don't think about Rawat. This is about reaching consensus among editors and avoiding edit wars and/or personal attacks. It's not up to us to editorialize about what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Btw, it's not at all helpful to this discussion for you to have responded to me by associating me with EPO, which I have nothing to do with: I don't own it, never have owned it, and I've never edited it. It's a website that's been in existence since 1996 that asserts a particular pov that has been already deemed on Wikipedia as not being a reliable source. So why bring it up? Please remember to assume good faith in the future. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is incredible how many thousands of words have been dedicated to the word “cult” in this place. I have already written about the Merriam Webster definition and the logic of applying it here, which came in one ear and out the other. Of the 5 meanings the Merriam Webster gives only the fifth may be applied and that one is far from the meaning intended by anti-Prem editors and from the usual perception of the term by readers.

I think most anti-Prem editors (ex-premies or not) have more time and enthusiasm than most pro-Prem ones (premies or not), and in my almost humble opinion that is one of the problems with this biography. If you told most ex-premies to write against Pem Rawat, including my two ex-wives, they would tell you they have better things to do with their time than waste it this way, and most premies do not seem interested in the Wikipedia biography, if they know it exists. So I suppose Prem’s Rawat biography will keep on reflecting the rubbish written by rubbish media in the seventies per secula seculorum, not exactly for the glory of Wikipedia.

What about something like “Prem Rawat was considered a cult leader by some in the seventies, but the form of his teachings and movement, from the eighties until now, does not respond to the term, and is clearly differerent from other movements considered cults”? Take for instance Trascendental Meditation, where you have to pay 2 thousand euros for a mantra, and Yogananda says mantras are mostly useless. Or followers of Osho Baghwan , the sex guru, and usually sex-obsessed, who do not have any normal social life? They do not seem so dangerous as Prem Rawat to many. First time I propose a sentence, and sorry, I have no time to debate it.

I like your proposal, only it should be formulated more neutrally (you cannot simply state things like "...is clearly different...") and sourced properly and carefully.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your approach here, P. Rainer. Let's face it, "cult" is a word that has a negative connotation, a dark, manipulative force preying on the innocent seekers. Even in a throwback way as described by several people here it is not appropriate. A cult can never be defined because one man's cult is another man's religion. I'm sure that Christ would be considered a cult leader as would Buddha, Nanak, Krishna, Mohammed and many others. Current Christian ministries could all be slagged with that term. It's a derogatory way of talking and should not be allowed into this article.

And to quote a Christian looney toon like Bob Larson as a cult expert is laughable. This man holds seances at Christian meetings to "exorcise" demons from Christians attending there. If an impartial person just looked back over the years at his life and teaching, he would be amazed at the fear and hatred that Mr. Larson has fostered over the decades. For anyone to look at Bob Larson and his extreme homophobic, right wing fanaticism as being a credible source for this article is an absurdist and their credibility should be discarded immediately. That man has no right to pronounce any other teacher as a cultist. He is a hater and an extremist. Gadadhara (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we use Larson book as a reliable source, we still need to treat him in accordance with the WP:BLP policy, which calls on us to avoid making unsourced derogatory remarks about living people on any Wikipedia page. I should think that editors here would be sensitive to how people with unusual faith systems are described.

As for whether Larson's book is a reliable source, that depends on several factors including the context. I think it is reliable but that we can find other ways of drafting this that don't need to rely on it.   Will Beback  talk  09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete disagreement on your attempted definition of cult. It is no wonder you would not want that word used if that's how you feel about it, however, I cannot find a definition of cult that matches your description. A simple place to start is dictionary.com I don't see a definition there that sounds even close to what you've described. Do you? Also, you say a cult can never be defined? Again, I disagree. I don't think it's that complicated, dictionary.com apparently didn't think so either. Perhaps it's just your own personal view of the word "cult" that is holding you back here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the definition is of "cult". What matters is that the term is used in reference to the subject in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that NPOV and accuracy would be served with saying something like "the DLM was called the fastest growing religious movements and included in lists of cults." That is undoubtedly true.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Still it should not be placed in the lede, as the lemma signifies a biography and not the history of DLM.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject's chief prominence came as the leader of the DLM, so it's appropriate to devote a little space in the intro to describing it, as we do. The text already says that he was often called a cult leader, and the intro should summarize the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Lede

Given the entirely circular nature of recent discussion, I propose to reduce the lede (which is profoundly unwieldy in any case) to the single consensus approved first paragraph. If, once the body of the article has has been rigorously assessed and re-edited, it is felt that the lede needs to be larger, content can added to the lede at that time.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

which is where/what now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear - I mean't the first six lines as they currently appear as the first paragraph to article. I've taken the liberty of introducing a double paragraph gap after the first paragraph to make it easier to distinguish. I'm simply proposing to delete the rest of the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What's so bad about the lede, now that the cult thingy is gone?--Rainer P. (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wiki Manual of Style before making unrealistic proposals. It just wastes everyone's time. The lead must give a broad outline to the life of Prem Rawat. Proposing to stop his life at the age of 13 in the lead is totally ridiculous. Please study Wiki Manual of Style, Thanks Terry Macro (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been discussed over and over and over, and has been edited extensively. I wouldn't recommend making any singicant changes to it without good reasons and a fresh discussion.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. When I realized that Maelefique had gone ahead with a significant change before we had reached explicit consensus on the discussion page, I guessed that we would shortly end up back in a similar situation to which we unfortunately have. The lessons clearly learned from last year's mediation are that to enable a successful or 'sticky' change, there needs to be:

• a) an explicit statement of consensus (nothing more than 'I don't like it but I can live with it' is fine) from those involved in the discussions and

  b) a clear, reasoned audit trail back to the source material, combined with a) above, as justification for the change.

I also remind participants that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Trying to force through a change based on numbers hasn't worked. If there are a few hold-outs, then the fall back is to challenge them to fault the reasoning that has been used to gain the consensus.--Savlonn (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We now have a sentence which does not represent the source. Additionally there are artefacts of synthesis that create a wholly inaccurate presentation of the Divine Light Mission. There is one good paragraph, cutting back the rot to that 'sound wood' would be far more pragmatic than endless circling around whether or one may mention "cult" in the lede. However if that is what the consensus is for, then Will's formulation is needed to resolve the first sentence of the second paragraph and it doesn't matter how many time Rainier posits the contrary. As Will says 'cult' is in the article body, so there's no basis for not to be in the lede other than it fails the significance test, which in this case it certainly doesn't.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• just because the word 'cult' appears in the body does not mean it should be in the lede. The reference to cult in the body of the topic is marginal and therefore is not a significant aspect to be included in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly expand the reference in the article if that's the problem. There are no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader. It is a significant point of view. The fact that there is so little mention of the matter in the article is due entirely to the participation of three now-banned editors, each of whom were acknowledged followers. Perhaps the problem of editing by current and former employees of the subject hasn't been solved.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, if there is, as you say, „no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader“, why does the claim for „cult“ in the „media“-section of the article rely on two tabloids, and on two highly biased books written by professed evangelical Christians? However there is no lack of sources that describe the subject as “leader of the DLM”, “messenger of peace”, “guru” etc. From the “Times of India” 30.June 2005: “an internationally known Indian humanitarian leader and peace advocate” and “a humanitarian leader and s steadfast proponent of peace”. Are these not significant points of view? And the articles from Sicily. Why just pick out “cult leader”? That is one significant POV alright, but for neutrality’s sake it should be complemented by others, and this circumstance can be referred to in the lede, in any case it should reflect in the “media”-section.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, it just occured to me, concerning your above insinuation: I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the line to which you're referring, located in the Media reception section:

• Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, as well as anti-cult writings.

It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough. First, the existing line is just about how the subject has been referred to in the media. However the term "cult" has also been used by many scholars, so expanding it in this location would be inappropriate. Instead, I think that a sentence in one of the 1970s sections would be better, since that's when the term started being used, mentioning that the subject was described by scholars as part of the "cultic milieu" and included in both scholarly and journalistic lists of cults.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DLM is also referred to as a cult by Time magazine too. Or are we going to go back to Time being a tabloid as well? And since Rainer P. brought it up, I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject either. Who's next? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough" is incorrect. Only some of the editors here make the claim. "Time" does not satisfy as an adequate source for the bio of a living person. Most tabloid and glossy media promote the prejudices of their readers for circulation purposes. It is not Wiki's purpose to promote such prejudices. Terry Macro (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you were next! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to reflect all significant points of view that can be found in reliable sources, giving each their due weight. TIME is one of the oldest, most reputable, and largest circulation news magazines in the world. When it reports with an angle that is representative of the opinions of its readers it is an excellent source for the most commonly held views, the views to which we should give the greatest weight. TIME is hardly the only source for the term "cult". Dozens of those sources have been compiled at this page.   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What an amazing compilation, thank you! Still, reading (admittedly supereficially) through it, to me it seems that "cult" is not the dominant denomination, except perhaps in some mass media, but there are many many alternative terms. Again, I do see a reason for mentioning the "cult"-perception, but it should be properly balanced, perhaps put in context neutrally. And BTW I did not bring up this employee thing, but Will did. Personally I don't actually believe that current or former employees are active here.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizen's Freedom Foundation (CFF) and the original CAN referred to DLM as one of the "big four" new cults along with ISKCON, $cientology and Unification. Of course, the "big four" of the "old cults" were the Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. Curious that the "old cults" were criticized for doctrine while the "new cults" were criticized for using psychological practices. Wowest (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Time article is not a tabloid article because Time is not a tabloid. The article is sub-standard, tabloid-like journalism because it is written in breathless hyperbole, and includes baseless insinuation about tax irregularities ( If there really were any they would have been reported in this article, I'm sure.). I note also that it criticizes Rawat in hyperbolic language for allegedly exercising freedoms that all of us enjoy[[30]]. Stigmatization via the use of the term 'cult' in such substandard, tabloid-like articles has been criticized by scholars as I have pointed out previously. I fully agree with Terry Macro; It is not a reliable source on the subject and should not be included as a reference.

I also agree that 'cult' should not be used in the lede. It should not be necessary to restate yet again all of the reasons for that. And, in reply to Will, 'scholars' who use the term 'cult' were proponents of the anti-cult / deprogramming industry, e.g., Conway & $iegelman, and $inger. I see from Rainer P's post that the list also includes evangelical Christians. Due to their bias, such writers are not generally representative of main stream academics, sociologists mostly, who wrote about Rawat and the DLM in more measured, scholarly terms. Will has neglected to mention that fact.

I note also that Will deleted the definitions section from the list of sources[[31]]. In fact, the page is not merely a list. It includes quotes from the sources. The definitions are essential to understanding the terms used. I have reinstated the definitions. Here is an extract that is relevant to this discussion.

"Provided to offer context about the various ways in which the term "cult" and "sect" are used, which are being conflated in this list without providing such distinction. See also Cult and Sect...The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside of the mainstream of Western religion. Exactly which groups should be considered cults is a matter of disagreement amongt researchers in the cult phenomena, and considerable confusion exists. However, three definitions dominate the writings of social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anticultists. Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term."

BTW, The article history shows that an IP recently inserted expremie.org as a reference. Can someone confirm whether or not that site has been deemed not acceptable as a source? --Zanthorp (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Margaret Singer was an academic psychologist who was also a clinical psychologist. She had valid, reputable academic credentials, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have academic credentials. She was a published author, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have published books and material from both camps should be considered reliable sources. Singer was not a deprogramer (like Ted Patrick) and she shouldn't be characterized as such. This is what Singer said in 1979 about the term "cult." Btw, the term "anti-cult" was coined, I believe by CESNUR's Massimo Introvigne, who himself, has no credentials as a scholar of NRMs/cults. Rather, his area of expertise is in the legal realm. He's a patent attorney in Italy.

The term "cult" is always one of individual judgment. It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and practices just off the beat of traditional religions; to groups making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader. The people I have studied, however, come from groups in the last, narrow band of the spectrum: groups such as the Children of God, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Divine Light Mission, and the Church of Scientology. I have not had occasion to meet with members of the People's Temple founded by the late Reverend Jim Jones, who practiced what he preached about being prepared to commit murder and suicide, if necessary, in defense of the faith. -- Margaret Singer, Ph.D, 1979 Psychology Today. Singer stated in 1997 that her above article and writings from 1979 still apply in the current day. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the article from Time that Zanthorp is referring to, but it isn't the one I was referring to, my article talks about none of that. So I guess that's multiple issues/articles from Time, which still is NOT a tabloid, despite Terry Macro's attempt to paint it as one. I also think it's important to note that both scholarly sources as well as public media such as Time agree on the term cult. Zanthorp makes quite a few claims against the Time article, can you prove any of them with sources? There are in fact many references to his tax problems, so your "baseless insinuation" suggestion is just outright wrong. Your suggestion that Time is anything other than a reliable source is pretty hard to digest without facts to the contrary (and I could be wrong, but didn't we already take that question somewhere and have it confirmed as a reliable source? Or was that just the LA Times?). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME is a perfectly relaible source, and if folks want to challanege it we can go to the reliable sources noticeboard. However there are so many other sources available that I don't see the point of focusing on that single magazine. Zanthorp makes disparaging comments about some writers, but again, it's used by many scholars. Even Melton included the subject in his book The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America - notice the title.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, TIME is only a news magazine! No need to pretend it is faultless, when you have a chance to look at an issue after 35 years. You don't need sources to see an article is an embarrassing shot from the hip, that happens in news business inevitably sometimes. It does not really lessen Time's merits as a news mag, nobody expects it to be anything else. I think, a person who can't see the face evidence of this won't be able to profit much from any source. Even science makes mistakes, but is at least obliged to keep up with reality. Only the pope claims infallibility.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with TIME. It's clearly reliable and if folks wish to argue otherwise I suggest they seek input from the relaible sources noticeboard. But regardless of what is written in TIME there are numerous other sources. If complaints about TIME as a reliable source is the only argument then I'm going to add the proposed text to the lead.  Will Beback  talk  22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the bio of living person needs extra care for the quality of citations, and TIME does not fulfil this criteria Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call consensus?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think what Will is saying is that your argument is so preposterous that if that is the only reason you oppose the proposed text, then there really is no legitimate opposition to its addition. Also, it's too bad Jossi isn't here (well, actually... anyways, I digress), he'd be the first to tell you, it is not what's true, or false, or reality, or infallibility, it is what can be proved with reliable sources (like Time). Also, if you're only going to accept the pope as a reliable source, we aren't going to make a lot of progress on this article if we need your approval. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your basis for opposing it? Just saying "I don't like it" isn't enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to see if anyone had ever questioned whether TIME is a reliable source at the noticebaord. The most recent and relevant discussion is here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Christopher Hitchens, "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as RS. Longtime editor and respected admin Nandesuka wrote:

• It's unquestionable that both the Washington Post and Time magazine are reliable sources. To argue otherwise borders on the absurd.

If folks want to keep arguing that it isn't reliable then we can post a new thread asking about it, but the repeated assertion is bordering on tendentiousness.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying that Time is unreliable, It has a very high reputation for being the most reliable of the news mags, I am aware of that, But it is not so extraordinary as to overwhelm all the other publications that don't describe DLM as a cult. In order to avoid undue weight, other RS must also be used. I take some from the page you have linked above:

"a religious movement" asndia Investigating Religious Movement By YRON L. BELKINDHindu, "Divine Light movement" = The Mini Guru By J. KING CRU February 3, 1973 THE STARS AND STRIPES Page 9; "spiritual leader" = he guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes; "spiritual leader" = Moritz, Charles, ed. Current Year Biography, 1974; " Indian sect" = Associated Press Writer Dec. 22, 1973; "new religious movement" = Psychological Reports, v.39.3 - Missoula- p.976 etc. etc. Therefore if the Time description "cult" is to be used so must many others. Of course that would bloat the lede unnecessarily, so I suggest to keep it the way it is now.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If Time were the only source that used the word it might be considered anomolous. But the term is used by many newspapers, magazines, and scholars. We already use "new religious movement", but that is just one of the terms used. Further, the DLM was not just a minor cult, it was included in every short list of cults, meaning that it was among the most prominent cults of the decade. If the assertion here is that a dozen sources are insufficeint, then the materials in the article with even fewer sources should probably be removed first.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we do have consensus that Time is a reliable source, and we have evidence of several other reliable sources referring to the DLM as a cult. There is also clear RS evidence that it has been referred to a NRM. This leads us back to the recent proposal of including both terms in the Lede, unless there is a very strong reason to argue that this is not a neutral reflection of the source descriptions. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The remaining arguments that I've seen against using the word cult are:

a) If we use 'cult', then we must also use all the other terms used. This argument is almost directly contrary to the purpose of a summary lede. The lede should ideally use the single most reflective terminology, or occasionally two terms where a single term can't be agreed. In this case, it is clear that NRM and Cult are the only two qualifying terms for the lede.

b) The meaning of the term 'cult' has changed to become more derogatory since the 1970s, and as such shouldn't be used. As the cult article and many people here have pointed out, the term has several meanings, only some of which are grossly derogatory. The use of the NRM term, combined with the context of article text (strong emphasis on peace, meditation practice, etc.) removes any possibility of association with David Koresh, Jim Jones et.al. It is also very important to note that according to reliable sources the DLM was very much associated with most of the definitions of the term 'Cult' and in fact was a cult.

c) The media has used the term 'cult' in such a biased and unfair way that the use of the term is now unfair and shouldn't be used. This is almost an appeal to apply original research. As a general point, regardless of the merits of this argument, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to actively change the way language is used, or to apply 'political correctness'. We must passively reflect current usage of language as it is used. Terms like should be used or shouldn't be used must be a red flag for us when they imply that we should be actively changing normal, current usage because of subjective reasons. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are any additional arguments to not include the word 'cult' in the lede, could you add them in bullet point form below, so that we have a tangible list of points to consider for reaching consensus? --Savlonn (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- Cult is a difficult definition with competing meanings. The definition of cult for a scholar, is not the same as the definition used by the Christian counter-cult, or the one used by the secular counter-cult. Thus, using a reference to "cult" in the lede, conflates all these competing meanings making the statement useless and not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, you have managed to create a self-referencing meta-paradox, according to your own reasoning. You have argued that the definition is different, depending on the groups you have claimed as responsible for defining these differing definitions, but have actually applied the term itself within your definition of the groups responsible for defining the term! Douglas Hofstadter would be impressed! (see Gödel,_Escher,_Bach) Therefore, by your own reasoning, you are arguing that the terms 'Christian count-cult' and 'secular counter-cult' are meaningless. As you can see, I could continue along this paradoxical path for a quite some time, but hopefully you see my point. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many more terms by which this movement was described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#Reception, so it seems biased to pick and choose just one, in particular the one that is the less neutral of the bunch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

1) I agree with you about the 'pick and choose just one' argument, as New Relgious Movement is used almost as commonly as 'Cult' to describe the DLM, and as such my preference is to use both, but in a way that accurately reflects 'Cult' as the most widely used and commonly understood term at the time the majority of the source material was written.

2) re: "the one that is the less neutral of the bunch." It is our responsibility to ensure that a neutral overall article is written. This does not mean using polite phrases and terminology throughout the article, but reflecting accurately and without bias the source material that is used for the biography. I assume by 'neutral term' you mean one that is least controversial or negative. That would not be an accurate historical reflection of the subject or source material, and thus would deviate from overall neutrality of the article. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many religious leaders included in scholarly books and encyclopedias related to the studies of "cults" (in the scholarly meaning), and yet these are not described as cults in their articles. One notable example is Sun_Myung_Moon, who has been described as a cult leader in many more sources, and yet there is no mention of it in the lede, probably for the similar reasons argued above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough about Sun Myung Moon to be qualified to respond to your specific example, though a brief read of his biography indicates much broader notability in terms of timeframe and scope than Pram Rawat, whose primary notability was that of a 1970s Cult Leader. My point is that you can't apply generalisation as an argument for the appropriate usage of terminology, as it will depend completely on the unique circumstances of each biography. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, 190.246.3.141 is probably a blocked editor who is very familiar with the texts in question, having written some of them. Further edits by blocked or banned users will be reverted.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not know if the anonymous editor was a blocked editor, not that this statement disagrees with the reversion of their edit in this instance. You cannot make up Wiki rules on the fly to suit your purposes. Edits by anonymous editors cannot be summarily reversed unless this becomes Wiki policy. Terry Macro (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by banned editors may be reverted by any editor, and editing to evade a block is also forbidden. I've requested an investigation and will report back.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It did seem a little curious that someone new was suddenly participating without signing their comments. Thanks for the heads-up. On a related note, they refer to the Sun Myung Moon article, which has an entire section dedicated to the "cult" status of the Uniication Church, I wonder how that anonymous editor would feel about us leaving cult out of the lead, but dedicating paragraphs and a section heading to it instead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Stating that DLM was a cult places undue weight on this perspective. It is original research for Savlon or WB to claim "cult" is a more popular term (not to say accurate term) than sect or religion or church without providing some statistics to back it up. For example as a bit of trivia, if you pair various words including "cult" with DLM in Google, it shows that "cult" is less often found with Divine Light Mission than these other words such as church, religion, religious movement etc. Therefore how can any editor state to the effect that in the lede DLM should be described as a cult based on popular sources. Can any editor show how this demonstrates a NPOV? Any inclusion of "cult" in the lede must be based on objective reason(s) that support NPOV. Terry Macro (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The proposal isn't to state that the DLM was a cult. The propsoal is to say that it was included in lists of cults. That is NPOV and accurate.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Will. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV depends upon the context. If it is to be stated that DLM is included in a list of cults (provided adequate references are available) then other claims that have greater weight will also have to be included such as along the line "Rawat has often been termed a guru, master, teacher, humanitarian and speaker in the popular press". Terry Macro (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Let's add the most important terms used to describe the man and his movement, as represented in reliable 3rd-party sources. We certainly have enough to add the propsoed text, and there may be enough to add other terms as well. "Sect" is another frequent one. I think we should keep the list short, using opnly the most common terms.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with this suggestion. I'll repeat the link to the reception section of DLM Divine_Light_Mission#Reception as the first sentence in particular provides sourced references to descriptions used for the DLM. I realise this refers to the movement and not the subject, but it is a starting point. --Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It was called a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, an offshoot of Sant Mat, an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,, a youth religion, a Radhasoami offshoot, an orthodox Sikh community, an Advait Mat related tradition, a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"), and a defunct religious movement.--Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't want that whole list in the intro. Some of those are very obscure usages. The first three might be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

yep - just to be clear, I pasted that list purely as a basis for discussion; it certainly doesn't represent my opinion of what we should put in the lede. As I mentioned earlier, I personally prefer just the two terms previously discussed in order to ensure that lede remains a summary and doesn't bloat. However, I am willing to compromise for the sake of consensus, and if this means including additional terms, then so be it. --Savlonn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will (did I really just say this?...)--Rainer P. (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not to get stuck on Time again, but they also refer to DLM as one of the big 4 cults of the 70's. Adequate references will certainly not be a problem. Seems a little like having to find sources before stating Prem is alive though...and wouldn't wanna be anyone's hatchet man, so I agree with Cla68 instead. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Terry's proposal. (And sorry for the hatchet man, Maelefique. This somehow happens, when I edit in the dark of night, being too busy at daytime...please accept my apology.)--Rainer P. (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, when you try what Terry indicated above, here are Google search hits for pairs:

PR + "guru" 12,500; PR+ "Master" 9490; PR+ "teacher" 7220; PR+ "humanitarian" 6450; PR+ "speaker" 5150; PR+ "cult leader" 3180. Draw your own conclusions.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with actual sources, not Ghits which have all kinds of problems.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This might work: "In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing organizations of its kind in the US." --Zanthorp (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vague.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How about: The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms: a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and different other labels.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no indication that those are conflicting terms. I doubt there are many sources that called it a "charismatic religious sect", though "sect" is common, and there seems to be agreement on including it. I propose:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was called a "sect", was included in lists of cults, and was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.

The assertion that it was the fastest growing group is important to its notability and the notability of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For better flow, I suggest:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, which was referred to as a "sect" and included in lists of cults, was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.--Savlonn (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought of adding the characterisation of his movement as a "cult" or "sect" to the last part of the lede, listing criticisms of him? JN466 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the DLM was the fastest growing NRM in the US and UK is not a criticism, and it's easiest to combine them all. I don't think it much matters where in the intro it goes, but there's a logic to introducing the DLM early.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

David G. Bromley once said, Cult is a four-letter word for a religion you don't like. So while DLM being a fast-growing NRM wasn't criticism, calling it a cult was. JN466 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one viewpoint. However I'm not sure that there's a benefit to placing all criticims in one section or in one article. The current thinking on Wikipedia is that it's better to include criticism in the context of whatever is being discussed. So it would be suboptimal to discuss the DLM in one paragraph, and then add a criticism of it two paragraphs later. Further, the intro does have a someone chronological organization, so to the extent we can follow that the easier it is for readers.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely he was (and is) accused by his critics of being a cult leader. That seems to be a bit more prominent as a criticism than the lack of intellectual content in his discourses ... this article is about Rawat, not DLM. JN466 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit for splitting the characterization of the DLM with positive mentions in one place and negative mentions in another.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else, or shall we post this now?   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at JN's idea. Something like: Rawat has been criticized for being a cult leader, for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[8][13] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[6][14], and we can keep the fastest growing NMR, which is the way the source puts it, and we have the "cult" in a neutral perspective.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We have various sources for the DLM being called a cult, and even a few for Rawat/GMJ being called a "cult leader", but I'm not sure we have a single one that says "Rawat was criticized for being a cult leader". According to whom was this a criticism? Let's just report it in the simplest way possible, and let readers decide for themselves. The proposed text is neutral, verifiable, and relevant. We've already written a few thousand words discussing it. Let's bring this to a close.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already says that he was often termed a cult leader, and the lead should summarize the body of the article. I think something along the lines of Rainer's version would work. JN466 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets conclude this cult discussion. That the DLM was included in a list of cults is detail that belongs in the article, not the lede. Including the term in the lede would place undue weight on the use of the term.

I doubt that we have the resources to accurately document the use of various terms in all 'reliable sources', however, a quick check of of quotes from the list[[32]] gives these terms in addition to cult.

• a movement, a religious movement, new religious movement, peace movement: used at least 11 times
• peace movement, ex-youth movement and monolithic movement were also used.
• sect, Indian sect, mystical sect: used at least 5 times
• One writer also called it an Indian devotional group.

Here's a breakdown of Google search for the Divine Light Mission plus commonly used terms.

• Divine Light Mission + cult = 41,800
• + new religious movement = 51,600
• + movement = 90,300
• + religious movement = 68,000
• + sect = 89000
• + group = 147,000

The most commonly used term is group, almost 4 times the result for cult. Movement, at 90,300, including NRM and religious movement, accounts for well over double the results for cult. At 89,000, sect scored more than double the result for cult. The use of cult is outnumbered 8 to 1 by the use of alternative terms. Movement is generally a shorthand reference to NRM. The use of that term outnumbers the use of cult more than 2 to 1. Quite apart from the well documented issue of bias, there is no doubt that by using the term cult in the lede, we place undue weight on that term.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can counter Zanthorp's referral to a neutral view on the situation using Google search with some other third party neutral observation I agree that we should conclude this cult discussion in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghits are irrelevant in general and those are particularly useless. ["Divine Light Mission" "cult"] get about 5,180 hits while ["Divine Light Mission" "New religious movement"] gets just 640 hits. And ["Guru Maharaj Ji" cult] gets about 2,160 hits while ["Guru Maharaj Ji" "New religious movement"] gets only 137 hits. The problem is that Zanthorp forgot to put the search terms into quotation marks. But Ghits aren't sources. We have numerous solid sources that refer to the DLM as a cult. Moer sources than for most assertions in this article. The matter is directly relevant to the subject's notability, and hence it belongs in the lead. If we can't settle this then we'll have to escalate to another step in dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Using your suggested search method produces a very small number of very specific results that do not represent general usage of the terms under discussion. The same results are obtained by using advance search + this exact wording or phrase. It is the method that you advocate that produces useless results in this case, not mine. Here are some randomly selected examples. Using Divine Light Mission cult, we get...

• Research resources on religious cults, sects, and alternative religions - Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Divine Light Mission

• He came to the United States in the disco days of the 1970s and created a “cult” following he called the “Divine Light Mission

Using "Divine Light Mission cult", we get...

• Converted to Divine Light Mission cult and drifted away from activism into psychedelic mysticism over the course of 1972. Meanwhile participated in vvaw's ...

• He is also a devotee of Maharaji, the tubby guru who founded the Divine Light Mission cult in the 1970s and has since grown fat (literally ...

I also note that the search method you advocate produces the greatest number of crackpot results, like the one above for example.

Above you wrote, "The simple fact is that the subject's movement was widely characterized as a cult in both popular and scholarly sources." Unless you are willing to count the use of all relevant terms in all of the listed sources for this article, the google results I have quoted give you the best results available. Clearly, results show that the use of cult is at the bottom of the list. The simple fact is, and I put it to you again, that by including cult into the lede, you will be placing undue weight on the term. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghits may be one starting point if you have an idea and you'd like to see if it has any merit but on its own it certainly doesn't convince me of anything, especially given the fact that we have many scholarly (and don't forget Time! :) ) sources that refer to "cult". It's verifiable, backed by solid sources, relevant to the article, and should be in the lead. When are we making this edit? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As Will has demonstrated, search engine statistics (I've never seen the word Ghits before - I guess it is an abbreviation of 'Google hits'?) can be manipulated according to what you want to see, and also are very much squewed towards recent data (last 15 years or so) that is natively electronic. We can't do an accurate search for common use of words during the 1970s for instance.

In addition, as others have mentioned, such research is trumped by the documented usage of terms by reliable sources. The DLM being on the list of largest cults of the era is absolutly central to the notability of the subject, and by itself is a strong enough argument to be included in the lede. We've put a lot effort into creating a solid audit trail back to the reliable sources for this during the past few weeks, and I haven't seen any refutes strong enough challenge the solid case for having this in the lede. I must concur that if we can't reach consensus then a more formal approach to obtain resolution will be required. --Savlonn (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand your point about the subject's notability during the 1970's. Please take another look at the usage of terms in reliable sources from that era. You will see that they do not just refer to the DLM as a cult. Even the most rabid anti-cultists are just as likely to call it a sect, movement, religious movement, group, etc, in the same book or article. Neutral, scholarly sources generally avoid the most disparaging term, cult. For those reasons we cannot give undue weight to one term that just happens to be the most disparaging one. The undue weight problem requires that all commonly used terms be included in the lede. However we approach, this Ghits or no Ghits, we come up against the problem of undue weight. If we conflate multiple terms and use multiple sources, we run up against the WP:SYN problem (my thanks to Terry Macro for his explanation).

Please carefully consider all of these points. Also, please show me any other biography which lists in the lede all of the terms commonly used to describe an organization that the subject did not create. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The exclusive use of NRM in the lede is not a perfect solution. I think it is the most practical solution given that the term is neutral and is generally favored by neutral, scholarly sources, as Melton points out. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Melton who include the subject in "The Encyclopedic Handbok of Cults in America"? The idea that the subject was not involved in creating the DLM in the US or UK, and thus they are irrelevent to his notability, is a non-starter. He was the spiritual leader of the movement and everyone recognizes that. As a compromise, we could place the proposed sentence in a less prominent place than the beginning of the second paragraph. It could go in the middle of the same paragraph just as well.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a real-life, reputable encyclopedia article, about the same length as our lead, which simply refers to the DLM as a "religious movement" and, several times, a "movement". Here another one, again using "religious movement". Here a third, slightly longer than our lead, referring to it as a religious movement only. Here a fourth, much longer than our lead, referring to it as a "humanitarian organization" and "movement". Here a fifth, calling it a "movement". I have yet to find an encyclopedia article that actually uses the word "cult" for the DLM. Even if other editors find such an article, please let us be clear that preferring not to insert the word "cult" prominently in the lead of this encyclopedia article is actually a perfectly respectable and reasonable position to take, and an approach taken by multiple encyclopedia articles out there. JN466 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Link by link...

• First Link is a brief paragraph only. It may be about the same length as our lead, but is nowhere near the same length as our article, and wouldn't be expected to go into any kind of detail on the subject, and in fact has very little on the DLM in general.
• Second Link 3 sentences is a now a valid reference?! Also, from those 3, should we include "successor to the gods", or "provides his followers with the knowledge required to attain salvation", doesn't sound like a great source to me.
• Third Link Also briefly describes only the chronological history of the DLM, and doesn't deal with any kind of classification
• Fourth Link talks about him being a god, or even above "God", can we use this a source too? and it does refer to "cultic festivals", but the funniest part of this link, is the bibliography, oh look, it's Collier's Soul Rush! Give it up on Collier already please, she's been weighed and found wanting, more than once in these articles! Downton is also a source (Who I have no problem with), but so are self-published DLM brochures, yes, very NPOV article...oh wait, no it isn't!
• Fifth Link written by Melton, who also included DLM in his Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, so I guess that would remove him as someone who doesn't think it's a cult, whether he used the word in your link or not.

As far as I can see, none of these links take away from the legitimate sources that do refer to the DLM as a cult. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique's comments seem on point. The examples are substantially different from our effort here. Wikipedia has different standards and scope than these other sources. It's not too much to expect that we can do better tnan any other source, so seeking the lowest common denominator isn't a proper goal. Again, this proposal has a neutral point of view, it's verifiable, and it's relevant. As a compromise, I've suggested moving it to fomthe first sentence of the second paragraph to a lower part. Can we agree on that or do we need to take this 1/2 of a sentence to mediation/Rfc/etc?   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has greater flaws than this, so for the sake of work flow I would accept Will's attempt for the present. Perhaps the sentence could go after ...in over 80 countries.. Let's see what it looks like.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Let's move past this, and forward with fixing the greater flaws with this article. I'll post the proposed text in your suggested location, and we can mark this resolved.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added it at the end of the second paragraph, per Rainer's suggestion. I think we can mark this long thread "resolved". Whew!   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

and a "phew" from me. I trust that after this lengthy excercise that this will become 'sticky'. There are a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync, but right now that is a minor point compared to actually getting that sentence in there. I agree with others that there is still a lot of work to do, but this even more reason to leave this sentence be for now and move on. --Savlonn (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"whew/phew" seconded...thirded? Yay Editing-Team!, although I think I agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it right before "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded", but I think we can worry more about that later after we fix some of the other problems with the article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• By what right do you insert something that remained unresolved with three objecting editors. It is badly written, out of chronology, and was inserted hastily without notice on a contentious subject less than 24 hours after JN466 said not to insert it. No one objects to "cult" in the body of the article but it is undue weight in the lede. This article is about PR, not DLM. Please remove it until this discussion is resolved. Terry Macro (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It is not badly written. If you're unhappy with its placement within the paragraph, I'm sure we can discuss shifting it. It certainly was *not* added hastily and there definitely was notice above. Regarding the less than 24 hrs after Jayen466's baseless sources and request not to insert it, Who made Jayen466 the Arbiter for this article?(No offense intended Jayen) If you have something to refute, the relevant discussion is all above. Please be specific in your rebuttals. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, my thanks to JN466 for the well timed research showing how other encyclopedias avoid derogatory terms in favor of the neutral ones. To their credit, editors of those publications do not wallow in the same murky water as sub-standard journalists and a few religiously biased academics. Unfortunately, exercising the same editorial judgement here is called POV insertion.

Will's edit has compounded an existing undue weight problem[[33]] and introduced into the lede information that is not covered at all in the article. The lede is supposed to reflect the contents of the article[[34]]. Instead, Will's edit appears to reflect only the POV of anti-rawat editors.

• The word cult is found only in 1 brief sentence in the media section where undue weight is given to the term.
• Unless I have missed it, there is no mention at all in the article about the DLM being cult, a sect or an NRM. There were several other terms used concurrently in reliable sources, so undue weight is given to those terms in the lede, although NRM has by far the greatest credibility and is neutral.
• For these reasons, rather than improving the article, Will's edit has done the opposite.

A proposal: If editors wish to include information about the use of terms to describe the DLM, I propose that it be included in the media section, and that for brevity and neutrality an encompassing neutral term be used in the lede; group, movement, NRM, take your pick. Group and movement appear to be the most commonly used terms even in anti-cult writings.

I was disappointed to see that Will has gone ahead with this very poor edit prior to the conclusion of discussion. I am quite happy, though, to allow him a day or so to reconsider and self-revert. Hopefully we can then fix the undue weight problem, and add information about the use of terms to the media section. I hope that Will decides to act reasonably in this matter and that we can avert an edit war and conflict resolution. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of "due" versus "undue" weight often comes up. The best of way deciding how much weight to give something is by seeing how much weight it receives in secondary sources. In this case, the subject has been covered in numerous books and articles about cults. How many books or articles about philanthropy have mentioned him? How many books on peace? Yet we mention those aspects in the lead. Below, Terry Macro has suggest devoting even more weight to the TPRF in the intro, despite the lack of independent sources on the topic. So the weight issue doesn't hold water. The type of group that the subject led is a key part of its notability and his.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, using "anti-rawat editors" to describe people who don't agree with you only sets up an "us vs them" mentality. It is not helpful to solving issues, and it's also wrong. I don't consider myself anti-rawat, I agree with this edit (although its placement could be better I think), and don't support your point of view. Is that what "anti-rawat" means to you? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start this. Discussion was polarized long before I arrived here. OK, I accept that you do not consider yours anti-Rawat. I consider myself neutral. The problem is that compared to the anti-Rawat sentiment often expressed in these discussions, neutral might appear to be pro. Like it or not, that's the situation. I've known for a while that Wowest is a former follower and is actively involved in a group that opposes Rawat. He says so openly on his talk page. By following the links on Nik Wright2's talk page I just found out that he also has a history of anti-Rawat involvement. So let's not pretend that these discussions are devoid of anti-Rawat sentiment. Clearly, that is not the case. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we drop it. Everyone should remember that this topic is under special probation, and that personal attacks or incivility are not permitted. If folks feel the need to discuss the behavior of other editors then their user talk pages are better places for that.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Will is right, there is no benefit to Wikipedia in this kind of exchange. However if Zanthorpe believes he as evidence of POV pushing or other bad editor behaviour he should be explicit, and if necessary seek uninvolved admin intervention. Having a POV away from Wikipedia is no impediment to editing neutrally - and those of us who are honest about our identities cetainly shouldn't be penalised for not going the pseudonym route. And in case anyone is in doubt, I will only seek to edit on the basis of what Reliable Sources actually say. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the present passive construction of the sect/cult sentence is weasely. If we have it at all in the lede, I'd be in favour of including it in the last paragraph, among the criticism; otherwise the article appears to be endorsing and appropriating the POV that called the DLM a sect of cult. JN466 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, I think it's in the correct paragraph, just one or 2 sentences away from where it should be. Since it discusses a time, and the rest of the lead is chronological, it makes sense to keep with the chronology. Also, I don't agree that it should be added to the criticisms of Rawat, that seems awfully negative to me. "Cult" isn't necessarily a negative thing, but if we push it that way, we could certainly make it appear so, adding it to the section on criticisms seems like a step in that (wrong) direction. In my mind, it's not a criticism that he was often listed as a cult, it's just a fact. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall tone of the sentence is neutral. It presents three different descriptions of the DLM without endorsing any of them. I think the general idea that "criticism goes at the end" is something that we've all moved away from. Praise, criticism, and neutral descriptions are best placed chronologically wherever possible.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

JN446 has a valid point, and those recent edits to the lede / 1970s section were sensible. Moving those sentences to the 1970s section restored structural balance to the article. Either the 1970s or the media section is the right place for those 2 sentences. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, what 2 sentences are you referring to? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)