Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Exceptional claims

I have become so used to this article the way it is that I'm sometimes shocked at what it contains. For instance - "Bob Mishler and Robert Hand warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". Really!? Mass murder and suicide!? No scholar has floated this idea, on the contrary, they talk about "diminished neurotic distress", "the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers", "Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness", "cheerful, friendly and unruffled", "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters" etc etc. Surely this is an Exceptional claim and as WP:Exceptional says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources and challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;. Unless anyone can provide "multiple high-quality sources" other than Mishler and Hand, it should be removed ASAP. Momento (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong to try and make this article reflect 1) only the views of scholars 2) positive reports 3) the modern less controversial 'image' of Rawat and the organisations he heads. From some reason you seem to forget that Rawat has a past which spawned a mass of material and media reaction that was a reflection of the contemporary perception and fears about cults - like the Jonestown one - where there was a charismatic leader who essentially led people astray. Interesting you should mention this after I just pointed out above a source (Rolling Stone) that characterised DLM as a Millennial Movement. Rawat was proclaimed as the returning Messiah at that big festival called 'Millennium' in Houston right? He sat on a massive throne and let people line up to kiss his feet as such. You just cannot divorce Rawat from the equation. He was widely seen and reported to be a 'cult leader' and yet you wave your 'Red Flag' saying it's an exceptional claim when Bob Mishler (Rawat's former Mission president) opines publicly of his fears! That's quite an important and telling fact and as I recall, it really scared Rawat and his publicity machine. By the way, your argument that Rawat's teachings are only about peace and happiness is conspicuously wrong. There a many, many people who have left and suffered terribly as a result of their involvement. Some have written passionately critical books, others were so freaked out by the earlier incredibly heavy 'surrender your life' trip Rawat abusively (IMHO) demanded of them that some committed suicide or have suffered ever since without closure or acknowledgment. Rawat has offered no help to these people and worse to this day calls people who criticise him 'unlit matches' or 'Dogs barking around the legs of the Master, who like an elephant ignores them and marches on'. You can count me with them if you like. Rawat was a fear-monger as his threat-loaded satsangs testify. You continually just push the good stuff and ignore the bad. I object to you removing this. PatW (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincerety, Pat. I think, this discussion shows very clearly, why scholarly findings have to be given priority especially in this article. On an OR-level we will probably never reach a sensible agreement. Wounds that still bleed after 30-40 years for whatever reason may well prove incurable, otherwise there should be signs of healing. I wish you the very best, maybe that includes some kind of forgiveness, last but not least towards oneself.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is about Mishler's exceptional claim and the complete absence of "multiple high-quality sources" required to support it. And that is the only criteria that I am applying. As for the impact Rawat's teaching have had on people, it is only to be expected that of the millions that have heard Rawat's message and the hundreds of thousands that have been followers, thousands would have had pre-existing mental and emotional issues unrelated to Rawat that would influence their lives. We do know that Marc Galanter, a physician, and professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Center, writes that "an analysis of the relationship between the time members spent in meditation and the decline in their level of neurotic distress revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress" and "Based on an analysis of Sophia Collier's Soul Rush, John Barbour, a professor of religion, concludes that Collier's deconversion from DLM was uncharacteristic compared to other deconversions from other movements, in that her deconversion brought her no emotional suffering".Momento (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. I have a question Momento. How many "multiple high-quality sources" are needed to satisfy this condition you are using to justify removing stuff like this? Two, Three? And how do you define a 'High Quality Source'? Would you admit that an admin (Blade) suggested that the "Rolling Stone" article may not be as unusable as you make out? Have more people agreed with your continuing speculation that the editor himself was ill-informed than disagree? PatW (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I would suggest that "multiple high-quality sources" would be at least three reputable people who, unlike Mishler and Hand, don't have a conflict of interest and who have independently come to the same conclusion that a "Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat".Momento (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to find sources that agree with the critics. We need to find sources that report what they said. Here are 3 for a start - PatW (talk)

1) - Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1992
"Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided. By the end of the decade, an estimated 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission, though this left a sizable following (50,000+ in the United States and 1,000,000+ worldwide)" .During the first years of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, both it and Maharaj Ji were constantly involved in controversy. The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance. Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. At one point, a pie was thrown in his face (which led angry followers to assault the perpetrator). Ex-members attacked the group with standard anti-cult charges of brainwashing and mind control.
"However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner, the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization. "
2) Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears; Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15 1982
"Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission--Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands. As Jim Jones convincingly demonstrated, the health of a cult group can depend on the stability of the leader. Mishler and Hand revealed aspects of life inside the mission that frightened the Deitzes. In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."
3) - DENVER (UPI) Former Divine Light Lieutenants say Guru's Behavior like Jones
Two former top lieutenants of the Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission have warned the estimated 15,000 American followers of the 19-year-old spiritual leader they risk a plight similar to that of devotees of the Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana. Robert Mishler, who served as Maharaj Ji's personal secretary and president of the Mission for six years and John Hand Jr., former vice president of the organization, Friday said the guru had displayed behavior patterns similar to those of Jones. "AFTER SEEING the similarities of behavior of Jones are so strikingly like Maharaj Ji's, it's possible something like what happened in Guyana could come about as a result of him being threatened," Hand said. Authorities have found 615 bodies in the Guyana settlement of Jonestown, which was founded last year by Jones, leader of the People's Temple religious sect. Authorities estimate about 780 bodie (sic) will be found. The victims were either fatally shot or poisoned by grape Kool Aid laced with cyanide. Mishler, who resigned from the mission last year, said he and Hand decided to denounce the guru because they were jarred by the deaths in Guyana and feared for the lives of mission members, who also include nearly 1 million in India. IN AN EXCLUSIVE interview with UPI, the two men said Maharaj Ji had spoken frequently of building a city similar to Jonestown and was infatuated by weapons and gangsters. Mishler and Hand, who were two of only about 15 members that saw the guru's private behavior, said Maharaj Ji was excited by the crime underworld and after viewing the movie "The Godfather," formed a security unit called the "World Peace Corps." "HE IS INFATUATED with the mafia and even tried to arrange a meeting with a New York don," Hand said. "The mission now has secret stockpiles of weapons." The two former Mission officials said Maharaj Ji's private behavior included physical and sexual assaults on followers by stripping them, pouring abrasive chemical on their bodies, administering psychotropic drugs and having them beaten with sticks or thrown into swimming pools. PatW (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is laughable, and the many years that have passed since then have shown that to be the case. Physical assaults? Nobody else ever said so. Where did the "weapons stockpiles" go? They never existed. The World Peace Corps? It was formed as a service organisation in the early 1960's by Prem Rawat's father, nothing to do with any movie. If Hand didn't know that, he didn't know much at all. Problems with anxiety? How did he know? Was this guy a doctor? Personally, in 40 years I have never seen Prem Rawat exhibiting any signs of anything even approaching anxiety. The point is, are there reputable sources for the fact that these guys said these things? If so, fine. But they are far from being reputable sources themselves for anything, apart from their own opinions and beliefs. Rumiton (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point PatW. We DO need to "find sources that agree with the critics". Otherwise it is simply the unsubstantiated opinion of two demoted employees. And since it is "an exceptional claim", that Rawat might orchestrate mass murder and suicide of his followers, it requires "multiple high-quality sources" before it can appear in a Wiki article, not just Mishler and Hand. Melton doesn't mention that "the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". Chip Brown doesn't say he believed "the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat" or had heard it from others, he just reported that Mishler and Hand said it. And Denver UPI doesn't say they believed "the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat", they just reported that Mishler and Hand said it. As WP:Verifiability makes clear "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability". The "source" for the Jonestown claim is not the article, the writer or the publisher, it is Mishler and Hand.Momento (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether I could have put that any better myself. Rumiton (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim as this reliable source reports, Rawat's alarmed Malibu neighbours made the comparison with Jim Jones.
4) THE PITTSBURGH PRESS WED, JAN 24 1979

The guru became a United States citizen and the mission kept a low profile. By it's own estimates, membership shrunk from 6 million worldwide and 50,000 nationwide in 1975 to 1.2 million worldwide and 10,000 nationwide today. Then came Jonestown in November 1978. Rev. Jim Jones, leader of the People's Temple, led about 910 followers in a suicide pact at their Guyana jungle settlement.In Malibu, suddenly may residents looked closer at the young people in the community who wore the small medallions bearing the picture of Guru Maharaj Ji.
In the aftershocks, the former president and former vice president of the Divine Light Mission in the United States gave an interview comparing Jones and Maharaj Ji, claiming the guru had a fascination with building a city populated by followers and maintaining an armed security force, and sometimes exhibited bizarre private behaviour.
"Guyana was too much for me", said Robert Mishler, 34, the group's former president who had remained silent since leading the mission in 1977.
Mishler said he left the group because "there was no way of accomplishing the ideals expounded by the mission." In addition, he said more and more church money began to go for personal uses and was concerned that the Divine Light Mission was becoming a "tax evasion for the guru." Mishler, the man who organised the group in the United States, urged parents to "get their children out of the mission." The comments proved too much for many Malibu residents. "People are scared of Jonestown, a longtime resident said. "They realise religious fanatics are time bombs. It shows what devotion to a person can do."
....Officials of the mission have been reluctant to talk to outsiders, especially the press. The guru quit giving interviews completely several years ago. "We've tried that and it just doesn't work," said Jo Anctil, the group's official spokesman, during a recent visit to Los Angeles. Anctil, who lives in Denver, said the guru was "very sad" about Guyana but did not discuss the tragedy. "He doesn't get into those things," Anctil said. "He is not a leader. If he is, he is a spiritual inspiration. It is an individual experience. No one gets up and says, "You've got to say this or you've got to say that." No one really cares.
"He doesn't direct them. He doesn't lead them."

Anctil placed the number of followers in Malibu at 40. Their activities are supervised from a suite of nearby offices under the mission's business arm, the Divine United Organization.

Others familiar with the group estimate that about 200 live in communal groups in leased houses around Malibu.
Followers are highly transient, which has crested problems for some local merchants.
"I've seen people living out of dumpsters and shoplifting at local markets just so they can stay out here and be near him," one store employee said.
It is the guru's posh lifestyle, symbolised by the estate and the personal helicopter that flies in and out that has stirred resentment among Malibu residents. "I'm not afraid at this stage." a neighbour said, "but I am irritated. I see him coming down the hill in his Mercedes while these kids live on next to nothing."
If the estate and lifestyle have caused resentment the group's secretive nature and followers' reverence for Maharaj Ji have sparked concern.
"They've been programmed," one resident said when talking about her fear of the group.
"it freaks them out because they think he his God." said one observer close to the group. "If God ordered something it can't be wrong."
"As a group it is very difficult to know them." said Hal Lyons, president of the Malibu Chamber of Commerce. "They don't have marches and they don't come down in force. They do like their privacy."
Mishler, he organisation's former president, said tight security surrounding the house is part of "elaborate precautions" Maharaj Ji has taken to hide his private life from his followers.
The primary precaution is maintaining an armed security force, Mishler said.
"The main purpose of the security force is to protect him from anyone and to control members (during the guru's personal appearances)," Mishler said.
Anctil said he had no knowledge of any weapons owned by the group, but did say the group was vigilant about the guru's safety.

Mishler said Maharaj Ji's ban on alcohol and marijuana for his followers was ignored at the estate. He said the guru regularly humiliated followers.
"He would have followers strip in front of others," Mishler said.
Mishler also said the guru often beat followers with his fists or a cane. But that the beatings never caused serious injury, he added.
Anctil refused to discuss Mishler's charges, saying Maharaj Ji was an "international persona." He is not the head of a US religion or cult..
I don't care what Mishler said. We all read the (news) article, had a good laugh over it and threw it away," he added.
Anctil said the Divine Light Mission is an "organisation for meditation and service. We help people in their spiritual endeavours." - Los Angeles Times Service
21:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation were concerned…
5) Transcribed as best as I can from FBI document at above link.
The Justice said yesterday that it "recognises the anguish that parents ….when their adult children give up their former way of life to join a different religious sect. However enforcing the federal criminal law we must act within our jurisdiction and scrupulously observe constitutional restraints."
Meanwhile, two former top lieutenants of the Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission have warned the estimated 15000 American followers of the ….teen year old spiritual leader that they risk a plight similar to that of devotees of the Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana.
Robert Mishler, who was Maharaj Ji's secretary and president of the mission for six years, and John Hand Jr, former vice president of the organisation, yesterday said the guru has displayed behaviour patterns similar to those of Jones.
"After seeing the similarities of behaviour of Jones' are so striking'. Like Maharaj Ji's. it's possible something like what happened in Guyana could come about as a result of him being threatened." Hand said.
A spokesman for the mission, with headquarters in Denver wasn't available for comment.
PatW (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

6) From Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1992
"Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided. By the end of the decade, an estimated 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission, though this left a sizable following (50,000+ in the United States and 1,000,000+ worldwide)."
...."However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner, the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization."

PatW (talk)

Obviously I wasn't clear enough. The Pittsburg Post is not a new "high-quality source" that has also concluded that "a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". Nor is the FBI. They are just repeating Mishler and Hand's "exceptional claim". The Pittsburg Post reporter couldn't even get any one to say they were "scared of Rawat". You can hear the reporter saying "Are you afraid of Rawat doing a Jonestown", to which one person said "I'm not afraid" but I am "irritated" by Rawat driving a Mercedes. Ha ha. Note the wording of this longtime resident "People (not me) are scared of Jonestown" (not Rawat) "They (not me) realise religious fanatics are time bombs. It shows what devotion to a person can do". Let me give you an example. I've become strongly anti-Rawat since I was demoted from ashram supervisor and after the Heaven's Gate suicide I ring up some media outlets and say I've have been involved with Rawat for ten years he's just like Marshall Applewhite. They interview me because Heaven's Gate is all over the media and I'm giving them something new to add to the mix. I make the exceptional claim that "Rawat thinks the world's going to end and I'm concerned that Rawat could force people into his plane and crash it into the White House". After my interviews are published, no one comes forward and says "He's right". No government agency, media enterprise or scholar bothers to investigate my claim and say "He's right". No one! Not one single person. Question, should my exceptional and unsubstantiated claim that no one else has supported, that suggests Rawat is insane and a potential murderer and that has already proven to be a figment of my imagination be in this article? Let's check WP:Exceptional claims. It says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (not just me). Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: challenged claims that are supported purely by those with an apparent conflict of interest". Much as I enjoy the discussion BLP is clear "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Has anyone got a "high-quality source" that claims that "a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". If not, this "exceptional claim" must be removed.Momento (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More on Momento's claim that "it is simply the unsubstantiated opinion of two demoted employees" Momento's own favoured 'reliable scholarly source' Maeve Price, describes that Mishler was in fact sacked (not demoted) because Rawat resented his advice. Rawat's claim to have 'demoted' him was untrue... if Price is right (excuse the pun).
7) From Price, Maeve (1979): The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. (1) Sociological Review.
At the conference in Frankfurt in November I976, Maharaj Ji had announced that the International Headquarters were dissolved and that henceforth he would guide the mission, with his brother, Raja Ii, as his ambassador. In fact what had occurred was the removal from power of his closest adviser, who had been the International President since the headquarters were set up in the United States. It is apparent that Maharaj Ji resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate and dismissed him when a clash of wills occurred. (28) Maharaj Ji's version of this event is recorded in a British publication Six Lane Freeway printed around March 1977 which deals with a conference held in Atlantic City in December 1976. Maharaj Ji denied that he had sacked his international director but claimed he had changed his 'service' (p. 34). In fact the said official has dropped out of the mission altogether.
PatW (talk)

Sorry PatW, I should have said "two sacked, not sacked, dismissed, service changed employees, volunteers".Momento (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento, I agree that Mishler and Hand were in a minority of people who actually expressed fears that Rawat would lead his followers in a suicide pact. Sources (like Gordon Melton) even say "Mishler's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization".

However the fact remains (as I have attempted to prove) that Mishler and Hand's testimony received widespead coverage in reliable publications. Blade is right to point out (above) that "readers readers are smart enough" to make reasonable judgements about things like this. They are not so dumb as to not realise that Rawat's accusers may have been fuelled by resentment. Equally they may have been fuelled by righteous concern and their reports about Rawat correct and readers should have the opportunity to weigh the facts up for themselves. Not be misinformed. An encyclopaedia does not need to patronise or insult the intelligence of it's readers as you would have it do. The reference to Jonestown should remain because 1) It is mentioned widely in reliable sources. 2) These sources describe how this particular incident was singularly instrumental in bringing about an important change in the attitude of Rawat to the press. (see above) "Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided. By the end of the decade, an estimated 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission, though this left a sizable following (50,000+ in the United States and 1,000,000+ worldwide)."
This alone is a significant part of Rawat's story that warrants proper inclusion. I propose it's misleading and insufficient to pretend that Rawat's decision to shun the press was unconnected with the widespread negative press as a result of Mishler and Hand's whistle-blowing. "However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner, the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization." I challenge you to find an uninvolved admin who disagrees with me on this. PatW (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not "in a minority of people" PatW, the ONLY people. And Jonestown had nothing to do with Rawat's attitude to the press. From this article "In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed" and "Rawat's last known press conferences was in 1973". Momento (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Jonestown had everything to do with Rawat's decision to shun the press. It triggered a sea change in his attitude that exactly coincided with that event. Read the sources again I've quoted above such as - "Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided." As I said the fact that such and such was a minority view or the 'only' view is a red herring. This was the view of Rawat's 2 top men, the press saw fit to cover it. and Rawat suddenly 'refused to give interviews'. Again, can you stop insinuating that we can never report anything potentially damaging to Rawat? You are using that argument to remove criticism. He was not accused of causing a suicide pact. He was just compared with a cult leader who did. Essentially his behavior was drawn into question, as of course one would expect at a time when another cult committed mass suicide. It was hardly 'titillating' or 'sensationalist' for the press to report concern, as is also borne out by the FBI excerpt above, it was a matter of righteous and considerable concern for parents across the country /world that other Millennial cults might repeat the awful events of Jonestown. I actually recall that at the time any NRM that smacked of 'cultishness' was drawn into question and suspicion. Rawat's neighbors were by no means alone in being worried that, because people like Rawat were seen as God, people would just obey them without question. PatW (talk)

Further to Momento's formal notice that I be banned for saying "Don't be ridiculous". What I obviously meant was that his conclusions in the light of what the sources say were ridiculous - not him. He is a jolly splendid chap I'm sure and not in the least ridiculous. PatW (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mishler and Hand's public denunciation of Rawat is reported as having the effect of fuelling existing public concern over 'Maharaj Ji' (Rawat) and his followers which was widely characterised at the time as being one of a number of 'cults' and 'new religions'. I think the sources I have provided proof of this. For the sake of stringent accuracy I would add that sources say that he had been shying away from the press increasingly for some time, and they also specifically say the Mishler and Hand coverage led to Rawat's further reluctance to do interviews. (see above). PatW (talk)

I agree with Pat insofar that maybe we can formulate a sentence or two about the interaction between opinion-forming mass media and Rawat's behaviour towards the press, in addition to the Der Spiegel-bit, as it is indeed an interesting subject for today's reader, the repercussions of which can still be felt. It may make Rawat's strategy of steering his organisation clear of the wide-spread cult-hysteria of the time understandable. But: Do we have secondary RS for that?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. We also lack any serious analysis of the whole Mission in the early-mid 70's, especially from a current viewpoint. And we can't write our own. That's the problem. Rumiton (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento seems to have gone ahead and made an edit to the article [here]. Can someone please explain exactly what he's done please? I have never fully understood these history pages which show 'diffs'. However it seems Momento is making edits to the article and adding the comment "as per discussion on Talk Page". Has this edit of his been discussed sufficiently? If so where? PatW (talk)

You may not understand diffs but you have somehow circumvented the entire process of editing, which includes automatic, bot-generated edit signing. How did you do that? And who are you? Rumiton (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton - you inserted your last (obscure) comments right in the middle of my previous post. That's the second time you've changed what I wrote and I am getting sick of it now. I've corrected your mistake now - but don't do it again OK? PatW (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are over 5,000 words of discussion on this topic and it has been sufficient to categorically state that only two people in the universe expressed the opinion that "a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". And the opinion of two ex-employees is not sufficient for Wikipedia to allow them to accuse a man of being capable of murdering hundreds of people in his BLP.Momento (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's absolute nonsense, you obviously haven't read the examples I posted above. And we haven't all agreed that by any means. You've edited before we've finished discussing it. PatW (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The FBI, Denver UPI and the Pittsburg Post all quote Mishler and Hand. Mishler and Hand are the only source for this Exceptional Claim. Melton, who presumably read the same article, doesn't bother to include the Jonestown guff because he knew it wasn't true.Momento (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Melton DOES mention it. Do I have to keep repeating the quote I posted as example 1) above"However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner, the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization." PatW (talk)

Does Melton say "Mishler and Hand said a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". No he DIDN'T. He only mentions Jonestown to indicate when the comments were made.Momento (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is beside the point. Your question is a classic Straw man Argument and of course the answer is 'yes', but you have set up an easily won argument as a distraction from one you cannot win.Several other sources DO say what you point out Melton only touches on. Melton is just one source of a number of others. For you to speculate as to why Melton mentioned it is just your OR. We have several sources that provide corroborating details. Your actions are unjustified, you are guilty of using OR to justify a bad edit - nothing should have been removed from this article. PatW (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More discussion if needed

The above section has got way too long. So to start again here...I have been working with this article for years and always accepted the inclusion of Mishler and Hand's accusations. But looking at it afresh, I think Momento is exactly right. It would be different if any of the allegations had been borne out over the years--these guys might look kind of prescient--but they have not. They have been shown to be spiteful attacks made by a couple of ticked-off ex-employees which have no place in a BLP. The article mention of maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults in 1979 covers the situation quite adequately. Rumiton (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento please revert your last edit and make no more until we have discussed and reached a conclusion. You're not the only one with an opinion and you should be decent enough to refrain from editing until we've finished the discussion. I cannot believe anyone in their right mind could read the sources I have supplied in the previous thread and not see that Mishler and Hand's accusations were shared by others and were reported widely by many reliable sources such as newspapers, the FBI and scholars.
Rumiton are you seriously suggesting that because Rawat never went on to lead his followers in mass suicide, his top aides fears with regard to that and their other comparisons with Jim Jones were irrelevant? I totally disagree. Mishler and Hands comments were not limited to expressing fears about a repeat of Jonestown, there were other significant comparisons and criticisms which other sources have also described. The gun fascination was also reported by other sources as were many other things such as Rawat and his brother's drinking, his ulcer, the WPC security force and other criticisms and fears. You're simply uninformed or in denial if you don't accept these reports. You can't say things are unsubstantiated just because you haven't read the sources! They do exist. Momento's habit of removing sourced information from the article because he thinks he knows Wikipedia BLP policy better than others who disagree with him is extraordinarily aggressive behaviour. PatW (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

i agree, Momento's editing style is extremely agressive and unbalanced. I find it problematic that only supporters are editing the article Surdas (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is what it has always been. Things get discussed and resolved by any objective standard and PatW comes back weeks later with exactly the same arguments. Now it is happening again. Mishler and Hand's statements were not "shared by others" they were repeated by others, and there is a world of difference. They claimed to have an insider's view of Prem Rawat's private behaviour which no one else had, and in the context of the 70's that was newsworthy. They were the only ones to describe "weapons stockpiles" and in 40 years, none has ever been found. They equated a peptic ulcer with anxiety, which has since been disproved. Peptic ulcers are mostly caused by a stomach bacteria called Helicobacter pylori, not by stress. They claimed that the World Peace Corps was started by Prem Rawat as a personal security force and claimed that its members were armed. The WPC was started by Prem Rawat's father in India as a general service organisation, one of the forerunners of today's TPRF, and no one else has claimed they were ever armed. Their comparison with Jim Jones was another of their unfounded and quite vicious opinions. We have an impeccable source (J. Gordon Melton) telling us that Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission. So by the stringent requirements of living biographies and also by the general criteria of relevance or notability, there is no reason to include these false allegations and plenty of reasons to keep them out.

Please respond to the above points by referring to Wikipedia standards and guidelines, and without using the word "followers." Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the Mishler sources is simply OR and at best a comparison with other sources. The last we need is a ripping apart from sources, like practised by supporters of rawat that don't like the message. Surdas (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not using "followers," but you are still not getting it. Wikipedia requires that we talk about the edits, not the editors. I hope I don't have to include "supporters", "students", "devotees" and any other terms for "liker" that you might think of. I don't understand what you mean by "simply OR and at best a comparison with other sources." Please clarify. Rumiton (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To say that "not shared by others but repeated by others" is just your opinion not a fact. You are walking the same footsteps as momento and i find that rather aggressive, for example. To play out melton with mishler is another try to silence a critical view and can only be a comparison. When you have had a WPC in the west it was a new instrument in the west. western wpc member didn't go to india to apply for membership i guess. the dlm branch created in the west was an own entity and remained with rawat after the split, strange that this is not in question, when dlm was a founding of hans too. i find your argumentation rather manipulative. Surdas (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding that Melton is a professional writer on subjects like this, an academic with a reputation to lose if he gets things wrong. Mishler was a disgruntled ex-employee with an ax to grind. Not any kind of source at all. Our job as editors is to evaluate potential sources, and this is not original research. I used the WPC example to show that Hand was not as informed as he seemed to think he was, and his other assertions have been proved wrong as well. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"disgruntled ex-employee whith an axe to grind", who says that except the cult?Don't measure other people with your own standards. This is pure cult talk and if you don't want to be associated with it, i wouldn't talk like that. On the other hand it shows what you are here for.Surdas (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you ever say anything on Wikipedia except "cult!" and "follower!"? I have over 9000 edits to Wikipedia articles and I can assure you, you would not get away with that sort of insulting behavior anywhere else. It seems that admins have given up on this one, it is too hard or something. But I suggest you don't push your luck too far. Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting you add "Please respond to the above points by referring to Wikipedia standards and guidelines". No doubt you are aware that all of the things Mishler and Hand said are supported elsewhere by others who have come forward even recently. Your denial is quite entertaining at best. I personally know most of it is true having spoken with a lot of people who witnessed it first hand. It's true that these most of things are not available yet through what Wikipedia would call reliable sources. In time though that will very likely change. PatW (talk)

Well, when they are available through reliable sources we can continue this conversation. In the mean time I'm going to read the article and see what else jumps out.Momento (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, be as entertained as you like. When, in time, other "what Wikipedia would call reliable sources" are published, we can hear from them. But right now I think it is clear that the above allegations consitute an extraordinary claim. Rumiton (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be flippant. Of course I was not entertained really. My point is simply this, I think readers will read of these things elsewhere with a simple Google search on Rawat and that this article will appear contrived if it does not mention what it can of these things.PatW (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I would not call that remark exactly flippant. More like snide and patronising, but I accept your apology. If you are talking about forums where people are encouraged and praised for coming up with the worst allegations they can think of, then I think readers will find this article a breath of fresh air. The question I get asked quite a bit is why recent Indian events that are captured by hundreds of videos on Youtube, and were attended by over 600,000 people and introduced by the Deputy Premier Prime Minister of India, are not mentioned. I don't have a good answer yet. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by PremieLover mentioning Mishler's website missing -- PatW (talk)

Mishler's website? What? Mishler is dead. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. 1) Mishler doesn't have a website 2) He died in a helicopter crash ages ago. 3) The website you refer to is probably one of the Rawat critical websites where there are a lot of primary and secondary materials and rumours that anyone can view. 4) It's perfectly clear from the huge furore about Jimmy Savile all over the British news, that being the recipient of prestigious awards, and even having a charity in your name and being seen as benevolent in the public eye is not proof of good behaviour. Savile in his lifetime received the highest awards the UK could offer. Since his death police are investigating 340 lines of enquiry from people who have only just come forward to report his abuses (as before no one would have believed them for the reasons you describe). History is replete with people who were vaunted as great 'do-gooders' but later denounced because things came to light that condemned them. PatW (talk)

Above Rumiton claims - "We have an impeccable source (J. Gordon Melton) telling us that Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission. So by the stringent requirements of living biographies and also by the general criteria of relevance or notability, there is no reason to include these false allegations and plenty of reasons to keep them out."

Rumiton's (and Momento's) repeated insistence that Melton omitted to describe Mishler and Hand's denunciation and it's effect is completely misleading. Melton NEVER says they were "false allegations" in fact no-one has. Even Joe Anctil (the mission spokesmen) refused to answer the charges, which in itself is worth mentioning here. "Anctil refused to discuss Mishler's charges". Read the full quote (for the third time!) and see for yourself.

"Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided. ...."However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner, the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the course of the organization. " PatW (talk)

I think we have dealt with all this satisfactorily. The heading atop this page says: This is not a forum for general discussion of Prem Rawat. Not only have we allowed this to happen, we are now heading off into discussing people who had nothing to do with Prem Rawat and who looked like good people but may have been bad people, so as to impute guilt by association. This is too much. Mishler's claims have not been supported by anyone else. That seems to me to be the end of it. Are we agreed? Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• You all m ay find this discussion pertinent and useful. [1] Best wishes.(olive (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, Olive. First rule of thumb is to always have at least two independent sources (not one source repeated twice in different pubs) for a disputed fact. Isn't this the case in that Mishler/Mischler/Mishner and Hand bit?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but this discussion I linked to is just talk among editors (although quite expert on this policy) not a definitive point on the Verifiability policy itself. Still I thought it might help with the discussion here .(olive (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately, as just a chat it is not written with the rigor that one would expect in a policy or guideline. While making a good point, editor Viriditas uses the word source in a way that might confuse less experienced editors. He is not talking about a reputable source of information that is acceptable to Wikipedia, such as an academic or an established author, he is just talking about the person who originally made the allegation. He is saying if there are more than one, they need to be independent of each other, which is arguably not the case here. An ex-wife and her sister would not be good sources for controversial information on a living person, and a reputable source would understand that. This is why "tabloids" are not reputable sources and no one takes them very seriously. They go in search of that low quality stuff all the time and use it with embellishments. Rumiton (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed this from above. Momento's argument is based on his Original Reseach that Melton only mentions the Mishler/Guyana incident to 'say when the comments were made' and he insinuates that that no-one else other than Melton counts as a source about these reports he is removing.
Momento asks me above " Does Melton say "Mishler and Hand said a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". No he DIDN'T."
I have pointed out that his question is a classic Straw man argument and of course the answer is 'yes', but it's beside the point. He has set up an easily won argument to distract from the 7 sources (I have listed in the previous thread) which provide easily enough corroborating details about the fears over Rawat repeating a Jonestown, for it to qualify for inclusion in the article. I maintain that nothing should have been removed from this article. PatW (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here capable of distinguishing that sources which report someone's serious allegations about a person is NOT the same as the report itself making allegations about that person? For example - "The Times newspaper and the Guardian reported that X said that Y is a paedophile" is not the same as "The Times and The Guardian say Y is a paedophile". This seems to be the crux of Rumiton and Momento's misperception. There is no suggestion in the articles that the newspapers support the allegations about Rawat. Of course the article itself is necessarily framed as critical - but it honestly reports the response of the Mission to the charges. It would make sense to me to say that Mishler and Hand expressed fears that Rawat could inspire a repeat of the Jonestown incident (etc) and that Joe Anctil (the mission spokesman) refused to answer the allegations, which subsequently met with little support and didn't effect the progress of the mission. That's a hell of a lot more neutral than Momento's removing the entire report and allegations. PatW (talk)

In fact, I didn't remove "the entire report and allegations", I removed ONLY the unsubstantiated and probably defamatory exceptional claim about Jonestown because it did not have "multiple high-quality sources" as required.Momento (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What you actually mean is that you didn't think the sources were high enough quality. There no consensus on that. You don't mean there aren't multiple sources. Because there obviously are. Right? Furthermore you removed it when we were in the middle of discussing it. You didn't wait until we'd all reached some agreement and you're trying to get me banned for saying you're being ridiculous. PatW (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the "source" problem again. There is only one source for this allegation...Mishler. The multiple reliable sources all agree that Mishler said what he said, but that doesn't mean WP should repeat or even acknowledge it, especially as we have a very good source telling us that his opinion was not shared by others and had no effect on the progress of the mission. But I think BLP trumps all this repetitive argufying. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. The Jonestown scare-mongering was made by only one non-neutral (in fact hostile) "source" nearly 40 years ago, and is long forgotten by everyone who has an open interest in this subject. If Wikipedia were to help perpetuate it, WP would become the "primary vehicle" for spreading something that time has proved to be nonsense. Rumiton (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you say "There is only one source for this allegation...Mishler" when there were clearly TWO sources. "...two former top lieutenants of the Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission have warned the estimated 15000 American followers of the ….teen year old spiritual leader that they risk a plight similar to that of devotees of the Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana.Robert Mishler, who was Maharaj Ji's secretary and president of the mission for six years, and John Hand Jr, former vice president of the organisation, yesterday said the guru has displayed behaviour patterns similar to those of Jones. "After seeing the similarities of behaviour of Jones' are so striking'. Like Maharaj Ji's. it's possible something like what happened in Guyana could come about as a result of him being threatened." Hand said. A spokesman for the mission, with headquarters in Denver wasn't available for comment."
Contrary to Rumiton's wish that the incident remain "long forgotten by everyone who has an open interest in this subject" I think most neutral editors would agree that it would be of reasonable interest to any reader to learn that such controversy surrounded Rawat, especially since it was obviously so very newsworthy. Again, what Rawat's 'former lieutenants' warned of was the possibility of him abusing his power, based on their first-hand observations of Rawat. As 'Top Lieuteneants' they had close access to Rawat and were in a good position to make judgements. Don't pretend a 'warning' in this case was not newsworthy just because it never happened. That's why they did it - to prevent a disaster. The sources explain how their warnings were based on the fact that premies were so fanatical they DID beat people up and do all kinds of things that were being widely reported at the time. Why? Because they "believed he was God" . Mishler and Hand simply sought to expose that Rawat's private behaviour completely contradicted that perception. And they were right, as is now borne out by the continuing controversies and allegations of a whole new generation of 'ex-premies' that are well-documented. Rumiton and Momento are simply trying to 'dumb down' this whole report as if it were an insignificant, isolated incident. That's the whole thing, this was not an isolated incident in the context of the period of intense public controversy at the time. It was in fact, the peak of the controversy which drove Rawat underground. PatW (talk)

This thinking reminds me of a bunch of extreme Christians I used to visit in Sydney in the early 70's. They developed a belief that a comet would strike the Earth in December that year and destroy the ungodly. In January, I politely asked them what happened to the comet. They replied, "We had already warned everybody, so it wasn't needed." You seem to be saying that Mishler warned everyone that a lunatic-led catastrophe could take place but nothing of the kind happened, so he must have prevented it.

Anyway, did you read the above? First rule of thumb is to always have at least two independent sources (not one source repeated twice in different pubs) for a disputed fact. This was mostly not even a "fact" at all, it was just an opinion. And Mishler and Hand worked together, attained power in the Mission together, got fired together and made their allegations together. They remained closely associated and can't qualify as two independent sources. Their opinions and speculations on the potential behavior of a large group of people cannot be substantiated, especially not 40 years later. They probably would not have been reported at the time except for the climate of fear against all groups that arose after Jonestown. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are again completely wrong - look above - there's the Newspaper articles then there are the Scholar's writings. You can't possibly dismiss separate scholarly books by different writers as "one source repeated twice in different pubs". That's absurd PatW (talk)

I have re-instated in the article the information that Momento removed since we are plainly not agreed yet on the matter. I included the original sources which I note include these sources-

• Melton - DLM Melton (1986), p. 141–2
• Brown"- Brown, Chip, Parensts Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru
• The Washington Post, 15 February 1982

I could add the other scholarly sources and the FBI one but I would ask that no-one changes this long-standing information again until we have a third party administrators opinions in the mix. PatW (talk)

I have removed PatW inclusion as per BLP - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". Provide "multiple high quality sources other than Miahler who claim "a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat". Momento (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have provided all the sources needed here. For clarity, I did not originally put this info in the article. I merely reinstated what you removed and have listed above further sources in addition to the ones originally cited.PatW (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how else I can put this. Mishler and his deputy do not constitute the "at least 2 independent sources" that are needed before a living biography can include contentious and possibly libelous statements. And the multiple sources you quote are only usable in that they confirm that Mishler really did say what he said. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, Pat, I personally agree with you that just about anything could have happened in the early 70's. There was a bunch of very young, very drug damaged people running around trying to outdo each other with their expressions of "devotion." There was Maharaji speaking ex cathedra, so to speak, and arguably not doing enough to stop the nonsense (though it is a bit hard to criticise a 15-year-old for not sufficiently disciplining the adults around him.) I would love to see a scholarly analysis of the whole period, preferably written by someone today in a neutral way but with hindsight, so the extraordinary way things have developed could be included. But nothing like that exists, and we can't write our own. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Guru?

User ‎Thumperward added to the first sentence: ... is a guru ... Down in the article it says, in 1980 Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru". So I think that new edit should be reverted, as it is contradictory.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) If the lack of a category in the first sentence elicits problems, we should try to agree on one maybe. I remember we had that discussion before, seemingly with no result, that's why a denomination is missing. Suggestion: The German article begins: PR is a spiritual teacher, who...--Rainer P. (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC) BTW: That sentence was formulated and inserted by an uninvolved editor.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hate to say this but do you not think that Rawat, who has more followers in India than in the West, is therefore at this time seen more as a 'Guru' than a 'Master' or whatever other denomination one might want to apply? QED sort of. I think Thumperwad is kind of right. PatW (talk)

Well, he doesn't exactly look like an Indian guru, or sound like one, or live like one, or claim to be one...--Rainer P. (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't object to calling him anything really - I guess whatever he wants to be called these days. Have a nice weekend ! PatW (talk)

Thank you! What do other editors think? Is this a problem? Could we agree on some denomination?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say revert. It was sort of an edit by ambush. Have a good weekend. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like reverting was the right thing to do. Rumiton (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Further Discussion about removed text, as per Dispute Resolution Request

I have invited others to comment here on Momento's recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?

• In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults. Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use, warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat. Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.
  

If anyone wants to be included in the discussion there I think I can add their name. PatW (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the second ref / source cited in the sentence removed by Momento. I found it here The other 7 sources can be found in the thread above here (numbered 1 - 7)

8) From Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982
"Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission—Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands. As Jim Jones convincingly demonstrated, the health of a cult group can depend on the stability of the leader. Mishler and Hand revealed aspects of life inside the mission that frightened the Deitzes. In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979." PatW (talk)

There are some pertinent points to consider on this page Wikipedia:BLP_zealot

• As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like "Roman Polanski was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"[1][2] under this policy.
• BLP zealots can often be found editing biographies of living people (unsurprisingly), and roaming the BLP noticeboard looking for articles to subject to their zealotry. They engage in extensive revert-warring to remove any negative material, no matter how well sourced. They report their enemies to the BLP noticeboard. They don't add material to the article — only remove it. If BLP zealots had their way, an article would say, in its entirety, "John Smith exists". BLP zealots, while thinking they understand the BLP policy, have never added negative material compliant with the policy — because they have never added negative material at all — showing they understand the policy only in a destructive sense.
• From Crying "BLP!" - Facts are facts - If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree they reflect poorly on the subject.
• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. PatW (talk)

IMO this is definitely true for what has happened here. I hope the damage that has been done to the article since willbeback was banned can be restored.Surdas (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fact that Rawat or his organisation were ever in a comparable disposition to Jim Jones or his group. It is a fact, that such allegations were made by Mishler and Hand, whose sole notability can be derived from their former involvement with the subject, after they had been fired. If this news item is to be mentioned at all, which is debatable, it should be put in appropriate context. And: I am not a BLP zealot. I rather think, WP needs to be protected from fanatic personalities of all kind.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be put into context. BTW Mishler was not 'fired... He resigned according to scholar G.Melton. Mishler and Hand's comparisons with Jim Jones included allegations about tight security around Rawat involving guns and fanaticism that occasionally erupted into violence etc. A number of things they said are also mentioned in other sources, without the comparison with other cult leaders (as far as I can see). Rawat and his brother (who was head of the security wing of the organisation referred to in the quote below as 'WPC') are reported to have been fascinated with Guns and the Mafia. (Collier is one source I believe). Sources like this video from TVTV which won the prestigious Columbia-duPont award for documentaries) paint a picture of the Millenial nature of the organisation and the critical and sometime hostile reception that met it. There is quite a long list we could draw up of reports (contextual with the Mishler press) of fanaticism which led to reports about fears of a repeat of the Jonestown incident. Here is a quote from "Rolling Stone" 1974.
"There is a fanaticism about the behavior of premies in the Guru's presence which is often amusing to an outsider ...but sometimes borders on the kind of violence not uncommon in millennial movements and at least once, in Detroit, crossed over the line. On that occasion two men posing as ex-devotees of the Guru first asked Pat Halley, the young reporter for The Fifth Estate who threw a pie at Maharaj Ji, to close his eyes so they could demonstrate the meditation techniques to him, then struck him repeatedly on the head with a blunt instrument, causing multiple brain contusions. None of the premies I have talked to about the beating seemed much bothered by it although some of them were aware that one of Halley's assailants was a revered mahatma who was quickly hustled out of the country and is now giving Knowledge in Germany. While waiting in line I ask Hallowitz for his reaction to the Detroit incident, and he says: "That fellow could have been carrying a machine gun. But he's actually blessed, he's part of the divine plan, and after he receives Knowledge his physical pain will mean nothing to him." And a WPC guard standing nearby comments to a reporter for TVTV, a documentary videotape company covering the event for public television: "If it'd been me, I would have split his throat on the spot." - (@ 36:00 Pat Halley, a journalist who threw a pie at the Guru, talks about about being immediately beaten by a security guard and followers in Detroit, August 1973. Another security guard says if he had been there he would have shot Halley on the spot. The interviewer says “I think that’s a fanatical statement. You’d kill a man for throwing a pie?”) PatW (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is naturally a certain percentage of fanatic personalities in every population, and this type of personality is certainly enriched in cult-like structures, as develop regularly around charismatic persons. This needs no proof, everybody knows this. A master's work consists in the beginning very much in controling such traits, and only a master can. Still it takes time to get rid of the fanatics, or to educate them to evolve to a more functional level of personality. Personalities tend to remain as they are, even when their cult is taken away or dispersed, an become e.g. type 3 apostates. That is why fanaticism has abated in Rawat's following, aside from gaining in maturity by ageing and learning. Rawat's following in the seventies was comparatively young and in many ways inexperienced, just like their master was, and certainly one can say a lot of things about them. But the weight of these informations for a biography has to be assessed from today's position, and this is IMO what we have to talk about.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article already weighs in favour of emphasising how Rawat has reformed his mission. Some argue at the expense of criticism. The whole thrust of Rawat's recent 'Legitimacy Campaign' is that he is a great 'Iconoclast'. Unfortunately this seems to involve only his version of his past. Where does he answer critics these days? Nowhere it would seem. Let's be clear about this, we should in no way impute that the allegations were either wrong or right. As scholars say, the Mishler allegations did not affect the progress of the mission. However that comment significantly follows from this paragraph "Following the incident at Jonestown in 1979, the Mission, which had slowly assumed a lower and lower profile, all but disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided. By the end of the decade, an estimated 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission". So please let's not hear anyone say Jonestown had no effect on Rawat. Mishler and Hand's allegations were not just that Rawat had similar dangerous traits of Jim Jones. This was more or less their summary. They described some of those traits they thought he shared and other less related things. Indeed who are we to say their fears were unfounded? As I say, the craziness around Rawat yielded widely reported violence and their concerns were probably well-justified. OliveOil describes these reports as "highly perjorative". They are perjorative in respect that they disparaged Rawat in the past - NOT in the present. So what? Their comments about Rawat's behavior have been described by others. Why should an Encyclopedia be shy about reporting their disparaging or perjorative comments that were widely reported in the past just because the intended victim claims to have reformed? It makes no sense to me. Both Mishler and Hand met with violent deaths and so they cannot have a say. Why should their legitimate past criticisms about Rawat now be buried? Incidentally nothing they said has been since proved wrong. It has simply been forgotten. What about free speech for dead people?  :-) PatW (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does he answer critics these days?: What critics? Where are critics these days? From my view it seems there is only a very small group of apostates tragically caught in a time-loop of the 70ies and 80ies, lost in time, endlessly ruminating their lament as time ticks away. They have been answered again and again, but it appears they cannot accept the answers. Are there any other critics that you can think of?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, that's how it seems to me also. A tiny group of people is having an unwarranted effect on the efforts of many. And Pat, your comments would have more, not less, impact if you worked to make them more neutral. Terms like "whistleblower", "legitimacy campaign" "legitimate past criticism" and "widely reported violence", and saying that critics have "met violent deaths" imply a picture that would impress people on an attack website but work against you on Wikipedia. Your claim that disparaging someone in the past does not mean disparaging them in the present is... Rumiton (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sweet solace in my heart, my duty is what I've done. PatW (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok here's my sensible answer to your jibes. - I wasn't suggesting the violent deaths were connected to Rawat. When Mishler died premies at the time spoke to me of their belief it was 'karma' for his apostasy. That was a measure of the fanatical thinking at the time. I take it as a great compliment you say that "a tiny group of people is having an unwarranted effect on the efforts of many". That's very encouraging :-) Regarding 'Legitimising Rawat' - that was not my terminology but that used in a Primary Source newsletter to American Followers "We have more to do with fostering recognition and enhancing Maharaji’s legitimacy than with having more people be- come his students. Our efforts, for example, enable your newsletter to report about the Italian and Harvard events. Those are powerful statements about the legitimacy of Maharaji’s work.".

Does anyone object to Wnt's edit of the disputed section here? I think Wnt's comments here make sense. I am happy with the edit so far and agree with this "In any case, please, do not delete the source citation itself. There has to be some sentence you can write out of that Washington Post source, or even another sentence to stick it onto, which will maintain it for readers to look up and make their own judgments. Loss of sources is a sure sign that deletionism has gone too far." It seems to me that both Wnt and Jayen agree with my view that the sources are reliable and should not be removed. As regards the rephrasing. I accept the change of wording and adding of context as an improvement. PatW (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object to Wnt's undiscussed edit and the inclusion of yet another Mishler/Hand "exceptional claim" - "some residents and a few members expressed fears about the group, which had an armed security force. I have removed it but have left the LA Times as source for the non- exceptional claims. A dispute resolution has been started, let's follow that through.Momento (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And it's interesting that a 10,000 word discussion is not enough for you about removing Mishler's ridiculous claim but no discussion is needed to add "armed security force" which we all know is complete rubbish.Momento (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to assume there are not multiple sources which mention that the World Peace Corps was armed. Are you sure? I would rather look into that first. Further it makes perfect sense to me that at leastsome of them would have been armed. Rawat (and his brother who was in charge of the security force WPC) are reported by Collier and others as being fascinated with guns and the Mafia. On a personal note (since you say "we all know is complete rubbish") I have personal knowledge about this. PatW (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There aren't "multiple sources" quoted by Wnt and that's what counts. And your personal knowledge is OR.Momento (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe I should elaborate. You're inspiring me. PatW (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the editor who suggested that edit was trying to help and made some good points, though his proposal failed his own criteria. There is some connotation in the word "warned", the way the sentence is written, which fails to make it clear enough that this was an allegation from "the dead past", during the immediate aftermath of the Jim Jones suicide. I don't believe we should omit news coverage, but we really have to work hard to clarify the context. Normally "claimed" is a WTA, but here I see multiple sources using that word, to distance themselves from the allegation, and I'm thinking it is in this case more appropriate than "warned". I have the impression that these are more or less disgruntled ex employees, the Larry Sangers of Rewat's group, and if so any bias that might affect their POV should be discernible. I am happy to work on his suggested edit to achieve a result that complies with the above. Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't something I know much about - the main purpose of my edit was to illustrate what I was thinking of, to the best I could manage in a brief time. I changed my mind about using "claimed" because I thought "told media" was sufficiently standoffish and worked better in the sentence, but it isn't a big deal. I added "armed security force" because it was in the L.A. Times article. (NOTE for any other outsiders passing through - these unlinked articles are all available if you paste the titles into Google; it's just the WP:ELNEVER taboo, based on real but nonsensical legal doctrine, that prevents people from linking to them directly) I picked that detail because it was surprising to me, and it was key to my understanding of the feelings of fear expressed by some residents of the area at the time. I think that further editing by people who actually know this topic should produce a much better paragraph. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wnt and really object to the way Momento has immediately removed the reference to the armed security force without even looking for more sources. I have already mentioned two above The Telegraph from 1978 and The Pittsburgh Press. There are more - how much more work to we have to do to Kow-tow to Momento? This is really aggressive and uncalled for and it just leads to stuff getting hidden. He should discuss it first. It's just thinly-guised vandalism and it's his pattern. Olive, Blade someone stop him before all editors give up in frustration. PatW (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said 10,000 words ago, I'm happy to work with anybody about content. But let's either do it on the talk page or at the Dispute Resolution that's been opened and not by experimenting on a BLP. The crux of this matter is, are the Mishler/Hand claims "exceptional claims" and do these "exceptional claims" need other sources other than Mishler and Hand. It's clear to me Wikipedia has a mechanism to stop disgruntled partners, neighbours, competitors, trolls etc making unsubstantiated and damaging allegations in an interview and then expecting to be able to insert their unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia. Which I guess is why we don't have a section in Richard Gere's BLP about about gerbils.Momento (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Rawat's Armed Security Force

Momento has just removed Wnt's edit claiming there are not 'multiple sources' to support the reports that the WPC were armed. This is untrue there are. I had already above provided two perfectly good sources above with the relevant text. One is from The Telegraph 1978 and another The Pittsburgh Press. Should he not revert that immediately? This follows immediately after his edit removing sources and the comparisons with Jonestown which are being discussed here. PatW (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No I shouldn't. You have opened a Dispute Resolution covering the Mishler/Hand claims and Wnt and others should wait until that is resolved before adding or subtracting more Mishler/Hand claims. But once again, please find another source other than Mishler/Hand for this "exceptional claim" because I don't recall anyone else claiming Rawat had an "armed security force".Momento (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

why don't you find another source that says it isn't true , then we could add both instead of your delitionism. If you hadn't had a glue that they were armed than that's your problem Surdas (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The onus for proof lies with the person adding or restoring material.Momento (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this? From Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979. "The main purpose of the security force is to protect him from anyone and to control members (during the guru's personal appearances)," Mishler said. Anctil (The Mission's spokesman) said he had no knowledge of any weapons owned by the group, but did say the group was vigilant about the guru's safety. The Denver police department confirmed a statement by Mishler, however, that Steven Braband had been issued a concealed weapons permit there in 1975 as Divine Light Mission security chief.

For the head of a security team in a violent, gun-owning society to apply for a concealed weapons licence sounds entirely appropriate to me. (In Australia or the UK it would be very unusual.) The only two Americans I know today both keep a pistol in their homes for self defence. This is quite different to suggesting there was a whole force of people carrying weapons. I can't see any way of rewording this to reflect the truth of the situation while representing it as significant for a living biography, because it isn't. Rumiton (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephen A Kent

In the history section there is a paragraph which contains the following "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". Now, I'm assuming that it was Kents companions that spoke glowingly about it? Yes? If any of Kents companions were notable they should get a mention, otherwise I don't think it should be pointed out in this article that some non-notable hippies spoke glowingly about him (and we are not told what these glowing words were anyway). Jonty Monty (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a rather generous summary of Kent's observations from his book "From Slogans to Mantra". Kent appears to have been singularly unimpressed. You can read the full context here. Perhaps you could suggest how to improve? PatW (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, on reading your link it's apparent it wasn't just his delivery he wasn't impressed with. He wasn't too impressed by the content either, writing of his "clumsy analogy". This and the fact that he was "incredulous" that his companions spoke about him glowingly should perhaps be included. That's if his companions opinions are deemed important here. Jonty Monty (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Please go ahead and change as you see fit. This article would benefit hugely from 'fresh eyes' such as yourself making edits.PatW (talk) 23:08, 20

October 2012 (UTC)

Oh and while you're here...if you could possibly find time to comment here it would be be great. Bring your friends too :-) Thanks! PatW (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Kent included the statement that "his companions spoke about it glowingly", it would violate WP:NPOV to remove it and alter his intention.Momento (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Kent had no higher scientific status at the time than his companions and he cannot produce any scientific procedure in this case. It could show as well that he was completely unable to cope with the lecture after 3 Minutes, while his companions could. So, if there is a need to include this bit, it should at least be put in context correctly.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying anything Stephen Hawking opined on before he graduated was of no more interest than the opinions of a couple of buddies he once shared a taxi with. Saying that he was completely unable to cope with the lecture gives the impression that he was pretty stupid. He was unable to cope because he found it "banal". Anyway, I'm going to leave it to others to decide as I get the feeling (after taking a closer look at this talk page) that this small suggested edit could be argued over for a very very long time and I'm a little too busy in real life to take that much time over it. All the best. Jonty Monty (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Stupidity is not a privilege of the uneducated. And I see no ground for comparing Hawking to Kent. It is said that Hawking's colleagues jumped at his wastepaper basket, as soon as he left his desk. And I did not say Kent was stupid. I mean, you cannot tell whether he found it banal because he could not cope - which is quite possible and plausible, given that others experienced it very much differently - or vice versa. I would be careful to take the ex tempore judgement of a 22 year old student for a scientific relevation. So, repeat, if the quote is to be reproduced at all, it has to be in context for NPOV reasons.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal...

This is partly a serious proposal and partly something to get folks thinking about WP:V and WP:POV as a solution to the ongoing dispute. I propose that we take a head count of uninvolved editors, and if there are enough, asking those that have a strong POV regarding Prem Rawat to voluntarily take a week or so off and let those who don't really care about Prem Rawat or his movement to attempt to craft a factual and encyclopedic article that fairly reports what is in the sources, giving each source the proper weight. I strongly suspect that when those editors come back from their self-imposed wikibreak, they will find the result to be acceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, most of the sources are 20-30 years old and hard to find. The participants could always make the copies they have available in some way, but I'm not sure how. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They are not so hard to find. In this thread above I link to and cite 7 or 8 sources that I found with little difficulty through Google PatW (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to let neutral editors have a go. There is one neutral editor - LittleOliveOil and perhaps you Guy. If you two want to create a sand pit article I'd be very pleased to read it. I consider the first two sections as good as an article can get. It's all fact and very little opinion. As we get to the 1973+ section we get opinion and tit for tat, pro and con editing that is un encyclopedic and hard to read. The secret problem is that unless you are a follower of Rawat, he can only be a fraud and his followers taken for a ride.Momento (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me provided there are enough uninvolved editors. I desperately need to back off here as my work is suffering. Momento wants only certain editors. IMO that'd be totally the wrong way to go. I think it would be best to have a mix of editors who have a a good mix of viewpoints but who are, as you suggest, not involved. I would suggest that you get everyone to declare their un-involvement clearly, as we don't want a repeat of the Jossi fiasco where an admin did not reveal his conflict of interest and even tried to rewrite the policy on BLP to suit his agenda on this article .PatW (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not caring about PR and his movement or an editor's innocence does not necessary imply neutrality, as it is hard for a human being, not to react to his message on the background of one's ideological orientation, and don't say you don't have one. The advantage with supporters and detractors has been, that their bias is well-known and not hidden, and can be taken into account, which is more difficult with the unknown ideological mind-set of uninvolved editors, especially as they tend sometimes to believe they don't have one. This is taken from extensive experience with this article. There has been progress over the last years and especially recently, but that seems to be how long things take. I doubt that a one-week break would really swing the situation, but neutral editors are certainly very welcome and needed here! Still, I go along with any maneuver, but there seems to be no substitute for patience.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I'm going to suggest that you kick off your proposal by addressing the matter which I flagged on Jimbo Wales' Talk Page and started the DNR about. Should you want to go into other issues I suggest you then work backwards through the previous Talk Page arguments. The latest action on the issue I flagged is Momento's removal of uninvolved editor User:Wnt's constructive edit. I was just now about to undo Momento's action, but out of respect for your wish for us to restrain, I'll leave it for you to work on. To remind you - There are indeed multiple sources for the mentioning of both the worries of a repeat of Jonestown and the fact that Rawat had an armed security force. The LA times even cites that the Denver Police confirm Mishler on this. The articles also go a LOT further in their reports of the former Mission president and the other 'mission lieutenant's' allegations. So I believe Wnt's original proposal was if anything very restrained, well-sourced and should not have been deleted. Remember that the Jonestown info was longstanding in this article until Momento removed it in his latest dizzying spate of deletions. Here's what Wnt addded which I would appreciate you re-instating as soon as possible.

• In November 1978, the Peoples Temple massacre bolstered the anti-cult movement. In the aftermath, former Divine Light Mission president Bob Mishler and vice-president Robert Hand, who had left the mission in 1977 complaining that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use and that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfil, told media that the Rawat group could suffer a similar fate. In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that although some residents and a few members expressed fears about the group, which had an armed security force, Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following. The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.

PatW (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I read from Guy’s proposal the comprehensible inclination to do some work without constantly being influenced by interested parties. We can at least respect this and not on the spot try and exploit or instrumentalise his offer. Actually I am glad when an uninvolved person enters into this game, and maybe with some luck he even turns out neutral and has a feeling for intelligent editing, so we can all go back home ASAP.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I just restored the paragraph, but this does not imply that I do or do not think the final version should include the material, just that I see no justification for not keeping it in the article while the issue is discussed. (Related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version ). I really have no opinion about or interest in Prem Rawat; I can't think of anything that bores me more than this topic. I am just here as an uninvolved editor with the goal of seeing that Wikipedia's policies are correctly applied, no matter what direction that takes us.

The edit that I reverted had the following rationale: " removed undiscussed edit full of 'exceptional claims' ". First, this has had extensive discussion. Second, If Wikipedia presented the deleted/restored claim as an established fact, that would indeed be an exceptional claim that requires a lot more evidence. If, however, Wikipedia presents the fact that someone made the deleted/restored claim as an established fact, the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times saying that they said that is more than sufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Reopen discussion/Jonestown ?

Hi Guy. I'd reopen a discussion on the content you just reverted since a long discussion has already occurred both here and on the DR notice board. I won't be involving myself in the discussion, but I also don't think its fair to the editors on this page to revert with out more than a personal opinion ("compelling") to do so. This is a BLP and the this exceptional claim seem to have only one source which is repeated in several publications a point which may be pertinent. Wnt made a stab at rewriting and his opinion was supported by Jayen. I thought this was a possible compromise at the time, but I still have concerns about BLP issues. Perhaps another try at rewriting the text would be good. I've reverted myself per the NB discussion. And thanks for considering this request I won't be joining the discussion further.(olive (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

editconflict: I see you've already reverted me. I only revert once. I would consider that a single personal opinion may not be the best way to go here. However you do have an NB at your back. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

I will be happy to self-revert if someone gives me a valid reason for doing so.

There are two issues here. First, there is the longstanding dispute about the content. I have no position one way or the other on that, and it needs to be determined by consensus, possibly through an RfC. The second issue is what version should be in the article while we attempt to reach consensus. Of course someone will be unhappy either way, but Wikipedia policy is pretty clear; you have to give a sound policy-backed reason to exclude sourced content, and nobody has done that. The fact of the matter is that when the Los Angeles times or the Washington Post reports that someone made a claim, Wikipedia reporting that they made an exceptional claim is not itself an exceptional claim. It would be an exceptional claim if we reported it as being true, but we have not done that. This is all standard application of the policy at WP:BLP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you read the latter policy, you will see that reports of a statement by someone are only exceptional claims if they seem out of character or against an interest they had previously defended. In other words, if we have a good reason to believe that they never said it, then claiming that they said it is an exceptional claim. For example, if Wikipedia were to assert the superiority of the Aryan race, that would be an exceptional claim and you would need multiple high quality sources to verify that (which of course do not exist). However Wikipedia does, in several articles, assert that Adolph Hitler asserted the superiority of the Aryan race. That's not an exceptional claim at all. Claiming the Hitler never said that would be an exceptional claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Weight. One source making a claim that is repeated in multiple publications may be over weighting what some here consider to be an exceptional claim. What defines exceptional would seem to be editor driven-an opinion. I have no interest in this article and only appeared because I felt that an uninvolved editor would help cool things off. I think what is in place is fine pending consensus, given that it came out of a DR/NB. I do believe what was in place before you reverted to be safer per Wikipedia's position on BLPs. Yes, consensus is necessary so I was concerned about your bold edit. I'd disagree with this,"you have to give a sound policy-backed reason to exclude sourced content, and nobody has done that." Wp:Weight especially in a BLP and on a contentious topic on a contentious article must be carefully judged with editor input or NPOV, Weight, and BLP may be violated. I think editors here have, in yards of discussion made some good arguments on both sides of the argument. An RfC may be a good next step. (olive (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

Fair enough. Self reverting now. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that what counts as exceptional depends on circumstances. If we were to report that a random person is a Holocaust denier, that would be an exceptional claim. But if we were to report that a prominent Nazi is a Holocaust denier, that would not be very exceptional. Being a Nazi does not itself prove that someone is a Holocaust denier; it is possible to be a Nazi yet not be one. But it does provide context which makes a normally exceptional claim less exceptional; writing that a Nazi is a Holocaust denier should only require ordinary levels of sourcing.

Likewise, saying that you or I are likely to kill someone is an exceptional claim. Saying that a cult leader is likely to kill someone is not very exceptional, and may not be exceptional at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

All completely true, but what you describe does not match this situation. If the Los Angeles Times reports that a random person is a Holocaust denier, it is not an exceptional claim to say that the Los Angeles Times reported that that random person is a Holocaust denier. If the Los Angeles Times reports that a prominent Nazi is a Holocaust denier, it is not an exceptional claim to say that the Los Angeles Times reported that the prominent Nazi is a Holocaust denier. If the Los Angeles Times reports that a prominent Nazi isn't a Holocaust denier, it is not an exceptional claim to say that the Los Angeles Times reported that the prominent Nazi isn't a Holocaust denier. If the Los Angeles Times says that you or I are likely to kill someone, it is not an exceptional claim to report that the Los Angeles Times said that you or I are likely to kill someone. (Quite likely non-notable, but not at all exceptional.) If a major newspaper says that Santa Claus is real, it is not an exceptional claim to report that the the major newspaper said that Santa Clause is real. In fact, Wikipedia does exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand on what I wrote above, if someone wants to argue for exclusion because of WP:WEIGHT, that is worth discussing. Just because I say that WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply (and it doesn't) that does not mean that some other policy doesn't apply. And of course even if no policy applies, it can still be excluded by consensus. I am acting as a referee here, explaining when someone is misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. I really don't care which side wins, just that both sides follow the rules. If a major newspaper says X, Wikipedia saying X might be an exceptional claim where WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies, but Wikipedia saying that the newspaper said X is never an exceptional claim and thus WP:EXCEPTIONAL cannot be applied. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually this isn't about what "Wikipedia says". Wikipedia doesn't "say" anything. Everything in Wikipedia should come from Reliable Sources. And as WP:VER "Exceptional claims" clearly states, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", in fact "multiple high-quality sources" before they can appear in Wikipedia. The claim that Rawat might orchestrate the deaths of 900 people is an "exceptional claim" but it doesn't come from "multiple high-quality sources". It comes from two ex-employees with demonstrable bias.Momento (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. For example, Wikipedia says that Prem Rawat was born in 1957. We present that claim in Wikipedia's voice as an established fact. We don't say that a source says that he was born in 1957. We just say that he was born in 1957. That's because we are pretty sure that it is true. A little later in the article we say that he claims to have the ability to impart direct knowledge of God. We don't say that he has that ability. We say that he claims he has the ability. That's because we have no way of knowing whether the claim is true or false.

You appear to be ignoring my repeated explanations about the difference between Wikipedia saying that something is true and Wikipedia reporting that someone else claimed that is is true. Untill you are willing to learn the difference, you need to stop misinterpreting our policies and insisting that other editors follow nonexistent rules. Read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" to see where the path you are on is taking you. Competence is required.--Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I know "the difference between Wikipedia saying that something is true and Wikipedia reporting that someone else claimed that it is true" but that's not the point. The point is that WP:VER requires "exceptional claims" to be subject to a higher level of scrutiny, it requires "exceptional sources", in fact "multiple high-quality sources". UPI or the LA Times aren't the source of Mishler's claims, they are merely the sources for the fact that he made some claims. They don't express an opinion either way, they leave it in quotation marks. Mishler is the source of the "exceptional claim" and without other "multiple high-quality sources" that agree with him, his claim cannot be published in Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. As has been explained to you before, your rather unique interpretation of Wikipedia policy would require us to remove the claim that Santa Claus exists from Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

I am not going to waste any further effort arguing with you, but I will warn you that your misinterpretation of Wikipedia's policies does not allow you to remove sourced material that, as I have explained, does not meet the criteria for being an exceptional claim.

I advise you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass before you get topic banned, as you were at User talk:Momento#Topic ban from Prem Rawat discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think "my interpretation of Wikipedia policy would require us to remove the claim that Santa Claus exists from "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" shows that you do not understand what I am saying. "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" is a work of fiction. The author can say what he likes. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is governed by WP:VER, OR and NPOV. Perhaps you can give me an example of when "Exceptional Claim" as described in WP:EXCEPTIONAL should be applied,Momento (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you about this any further. I have warned you of what I believe the result will be if you persist in this, but I have no authority and of course I might be wrong, so you are free to keep at it and see how the Wikipedia community will respond. I am done. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Larson's opinion of modern music?

Larson has written several books about Rock and Roll and Satanism. Does this mean I can go to any article about rock and roll and say "Rock and roll has been described as Satanic"?Momento (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because it isn't true. Rock and roll is a genre of music from the 1940s and early 1950s, and Larson never said it was satanic. If, instead, you want to add that (with proper citations) to an article about Rock music (Larson's actual target), go right ahead (assuming, of course that between now and then you correct your willful ignorance about the difference between Wikipedia claiming that rock music is satanic and Wikipedia claiming that Bob Larson said that rock music is satanic. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia). A good place to add the material would be Social effects of rock music#Satanism, a section that would be greatly improved by properly material about Larson and others claiming that rock music is satanic.--Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you read "Rock and Roll, the Devil's Diversion by BOB Larson. [2] Or perhaps "Hippies, Hindus, and Rock & Roll" by Bob Larson.Momento (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not taking the bait. Rock and roll is about a genre of music from the 1940s and early 1950s. Bob Larson was writing about Rock music#Golden age (mid- to late 1960s) no matter what name he called it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Too late. You're on the plate with mashed potatoes and green beans.Momento (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there still an active dispute here?

Sorry about the delay re the DRN thread. If there's still an active issue, please let me know ASAP. I'd rather have had a fresh pair of eyes on the dispute, but that seems unlikely. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Welcome back. I'd suggest you to read these threads (start at 1 and read down) carefully to get the gist of the arguments - you should probably read even further on, as the matter spills onto subsequent threads, ending up here!
Location of dispute

• 1) Talk:Prem_Rawat#Exceptional_claims
• 2) Talk:Prem_Rawat#More_discussion_if_needed
• 3) Talk:Prem_Rawat#Further_Discussion_about_removed_text.2C_as_per_Dispute_Resolution_Request

PatW (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably an idea to remind people that THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION NB DISCUSSION IS HERE PatW (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I've closed it. I think any discussion would be quite long, not suitable for a noticeboard discussion. I think mediating it here would be best. PatW, can you please send a notification to all reguarly involved editors. As I've mediated this on-and-off for a few years, I want to be sure there's no objection to me doing so. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a very simple issue. Claiming someone is capable of orchestrating the murder/suicide of 900 people is obviously an "exceptional claim that needs multiple high quality sources". Mishler/Hand are the only source for this claim or does repeating their claim several times magically turn them into "multiple high quality sources"?Momento (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by anyone who decides to alter the infobox photo without discussion or reason. Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches which is captured in the uncropped photo. It adds to the article. I have reinstated it.Momento (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The image that I reinserted was long-standing for around four years, is the standard style for biography infoboxes (head and shoulders), and was agreed to at the time I inserted it in 2008 (see discussion). The image that is in the article at present was inserted without discussion, thus I feel that it is this image that should be discussed per the BRD process. Someone boldly added it to the article, I reverted the change, and thus I suggest we discuss it here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason why the standard style for images in biography infoboxes on Wikipedia is head and shoulders. A more zoomed out image makes it nearly impossible for those who are browsing the web on tiny mobile phone screens to see what the individual looks like. If Momento wants to establish that "Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches" he should find a reliable source establishing that and add it to the text of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why edits are usually discussed first. I did not know there was a preference for only head and shoulders. I was guided by "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". So Rawat talking seemed the most appropriate to me. Please direct me to "head and shoulders" info. Thanks.Momento (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Steve, welcome back, but please don't go changing things that are not even under discussion. One issue at a time, please. You ask if there are any objections to your returning, and if you cannot comply with this request and tread more lightly I, for one, will have a major objection. I agree with Momento that the newer photo better represents Prem Rawat's work and still be as viewable as anything else on a mobile device. Rumiton (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And Guy, I am baffled by your questioning whether "Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches". The whole article is about these things and the effect they have had on people around the world. Rumiton (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would read what I write and respond to that instead of putting words in my mouth. Please go back and read it again. I clearly wrote "If Momento wants to establish X..." in direct response to your stated claim about the image establishing X. If I had wanted to question X, I would have said so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton is correct. You suggested that if I wanted "to establish that Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches I should find a reliable source establishing that and add it to the text of the article" as if there was a question as to what Rawat is notable for. Firstly, I never suggested that I wanted to "establish that Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches", you are putting words in my mouth. And secondly I don't need to find a reliable source that says "Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches" to the article, because the article is full of sourced references to his "teaching and speeches". The first sentence of the article states that Rawat "teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge" and the second and third sentences contain "Satguru (True Master) to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message". It couldn't be any clearer that Rawat is "notable for his teachings and his speeches". So, like Rumiton, I am baffled. Why would you say "If Momento wants to establish that "Rawat is notable for his teachings and his speeches" when I don't want to or need to; and why would you say I need to find a reliable source establishing that and add it to the text of the article"?Momento (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think I have it figured. The sentence was a bit hard to parse, but Guy seems to be saying, "If Momento wants to illustrate that the subject is known for his teachings and talks then he can't do it with a photo. It has to be in the text." Do I have it right, Guy? Rumiton (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The change I made I felt was cosmetic only and had previously been discussed at length, thus I didn't see a problem with using the original, longstanding image, especially because it is cropped. I felt that the image fits more with the norms of infoboxes for biography articles, hence the preference. That said, I have no strong feelings either way. What image is in the infobox doesn't bother me. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter very much, but I think the point here is that everything here is sensitive. If you are to really help this time around, you will need to tread very softly and not start any more fires. OK? Rumiton (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

List of issues

Could all parties please start compiling a list of all unresolved issues in the article? Word them neutrally. This has been mediated on-and-off for years, and I think we should try and resolve them all, once and for all. We'll go from there after. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 1- The use of biased or extreme sources to add negativity to this article.
• Issue 2- The removal of sourced criticism as per the Mishler/Jonestown/Guns discussions below
• Issue 3- The extremely high bar that has been set for including reports of the activities of Prem Rawat since 1980. Reports in the Indian press of recent (post 2000) international events in Delhi attended by 600,000 people and once introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister of India have been rejected because they "sounded like press releases" (though they were not so marked). Reports of large international events held in Kuala Lumpur and the success of his "Words of Peace" program in Malaysia were rejected because Bernama, the source, is a government-owned TV company and the government of Malaysia is arguably non-democratic. Italian news organisations were rejected because they were not in English. Other TV news sources were rejected because the station concerned no longer holds the news clip they made and it can now only be found on YouTube. Primary sources representing Prem Rawat (TPRF and WoPG) are rejected for any information at all, even though their reports of his activities are corroborated by these other sources. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Section Break

I'm going going to cry "Foul" here. I wanted to leave it to uninvolved editors after simply making it clear to them the issues I had bought to the DN (since that was closed) and Wales' page. Shame - I was prepared to take a Wikibreak but if Momento and Rainer are going to attempt to influence the discussion in this thread then I don't see why I should stay away.

Subsequent to Rainer's gentlemanly apology and deletion of his comments and with respect to the spirit of Guy's very welcome proposal I have removed my argument from here . PatW (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re " I wanted to leave it to uninvolved editors after simply making it clear to them ... was prepared to take a Wikibreak but if you Rainer are going to attempt to influence the discussion..." That's not what am looking for. Of course if just one party takes a wikibreak that will leave the other party unopposed, and that's not fair. What I am looking in my proposal is for everyone involved to agree to take a wikibreak at the same time. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways to get everyone to take a Wikibreak, as well. I suggest we work off a voluntary option. Go spend time with your family. Read a book. Edit something else if you can't stay off Wikipedia. But I do think everyone should step back. Guy and myself will have a talk and draw up an action plan to move forward. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So I'd like to get this straight, and no I'm not really involved here. I entered in a neutral role when things had heated up. Two editors have come in and are telling the editors on this page they must leave, take a wikibreak, while these two editors draw up a plan. I've never seen anything like this before and am very uncomfortable with it. Ownership? Am I missing something here? Perhaps the editors have agreed to this? I also have never seen an article protected when there was no edit warring going on. Both I and Guy were agreeable to self reverting once there was discussion. But again maybe I'm missing something. I'm just not familiar with this method of dealing with articles. I wouldn't mind learning something here.(olive (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, I must apologise for being inconsequent here. I made a mistake, not being aware that Guy's proposal had been already fully operational. Won't hapen again. Please proceed. I deleted my last contribution.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@Olive, happy to discuss. This article has had disputes for many years, and having mediated disptues on it over the years, I don't feel a conventional approach working. Protecting the article eliminates the possibility of edit warring, which has happened in the past, and provides stability. It also makes participants more willing to discuss the issues, and come to a compromise - the article won't be unprotected otherwise. Unconventional, but works. As for the break, I am going to consult with some other experienced DR folk to draw up a clear way forward. The disputes on this page can from time to time run hot. I want everyone to be refreshed before we proceed, hence my request. Hope that clears everything up. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Olive, please ponder the difference between me making a Modest Proposal and seeing if everyone will agree to it and "telling the editors on this page they must leave". Then ponder the difference between all uninvolved editors and "these two editors". You might find http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html to be instructive. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. and thanks I know what a straw man is and I hope my request for information based on this comment,"There are other ways to get everyone to take a Wikibreak, as well." is not considered a straw man? I wasn't referencing either you Guy, or Steve just a general comment about the procedure which I have never seen despite a fair amount of time in contentious situations. As well, whatever I think if the regular editors on this page see this as a way forward I most certainly would not consider contesting it. I will be watching to see if this model can be applied to other pages. Thanks to you both for your efforts to deal with this difficult situation.(olive (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

I don't feel I was 'told' to leave but I respected that Guy and other uninvolved editors needed some space to discuss the specific issue I had bought to a DRN and to Jimbo's page. I have deleted my counter argument to Rainer above (since his gentlemanly apology) but see now Momento has joined in. I deemed Guy's proposal a good idea and if Momento refrains we might see some interesting discussion which, for a change, is not obfuscated by involved editors interruptions. If he doesn't, I will counter argue as is only fair. I would rather not. PatW (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "I hope my request for information based on this comment, 'There are other ways to get everyone to take a Wikibreak, as well.' is not considered a straw man?", I don't want to make a big deal of a minor incident, but you did say "Two editors have come in and are telling the editors on this page they must leave, take a wikibreak, while these two editors draw up a plan" (emphasis added). I can't speak for Steven Zhang, but when you claim that Steven Zhang and Guy Macon said something, it would be nice if it was something that Guy Macon actually said.

Again, my Modest Proposal was to ask those who are involved in this dispute volunteer, repeat, volunteer to take a week or so off and let all, repeat all of the uninvolved editors (not just two of them - I specified that we need to take a count first to see if we have enough of them) try to fix the article. This is an entirely separate idea from temporarily protecting the article so that nobody can change it. I support that decision, but it is not what I proposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no confidence in Guy and/or Steven to improve this article judging on the performance so far. If they and others want to start a sandpit I'll stay out of it unless asked to comment.Momento (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would hate to try to throw you out of a party at my house at 2am if Steve's threatening us with discretionary sanctions if we don't "take a Wikibreak" does not make you feel you are being "told to leave". :) But putting that aside, I have made some suggestions above which seem to have been overlooked. I will try again. I had reposted some of Wnt's suggestion, which I feel is well expressed and a good way forward. Here it is again: There is some connotation in the word "warned", the way the sentence is written, which fails to make it clear enough that this was an allegation from "the dead past", during the immediate aftermath of the Jim Jones suicide. I don't believe we should omit news coverage, but we really have to work hard to clarify the context. Normally "claimed" is a WTA, but here I see multiple sources using that word, to distance themselves from the allegation, and I'm thinking it is in this case more appropriate than "warned". I have the impression that these are more or less disgruntled ex employees, the Larry Sangers of Rawat's group, and if so any bias that might affect their POV should be discernible. Can we come up with a better treatment of this occurrence that satisfies the above? That will surely satisfy BLP and all the other guidelines that have been invoked above. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about rejecting sources because they're by "disgruntled ex-employees". Some organizations are strict enough about criticism that anyone who comes up with serious criticisms of them on certain topics will automatically be expelled or forced to leave. Before we can say that being kicked out of an organization is evidence of bias, we need to ask ourselves if the organization would kick out an unbiased critic. If the answer is "yes", being a disgruntled ex-employee may not actually demonstrate bias. And I suspect that in this case the answer is "yes". Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying the claims should be rejected, just carefully contextualised, as per the recent Dispute Resolution Noticeboard by Wnt. I believe we should at least try to work in this direction. Your term "unbiased critic" suggests interesting possibilities. Can we proceed? Rumiton (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Rumiton, I wasn't threatening anyone, I was just trying to remind all involved here that the area is under discretionary sanctions, and that it might be a good idea for everyone to take a break before tempers flare. I apologise if it came across as a threat. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok Steve, but it certainly did come across as threatening to me. I can only suggest that you really try to listen respectfully to the currently engaged editors and think about what they are saying. Also respect the article as it stands (that pic is an example.) As a very experienced Wikipedian, you must be aware that any edit can be condemned or supported by a truckload of more-or-less contradictory Wikipedia guidelines. Right now at Prem Rawat, our interpretations of guidelines are being dismissed without consideration and we are getting lectured, in language less civil than I have heard elsewhere on this whole project, and apparently with impunity. I have seen in the past that this does not have a good outcome. All the best. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"...in language less civil than I have heard elsewhere on this whole project"??? don't you think that is a bit melodramatic? "and apparently with impunity"??? "Impunity" in a noun that means "immunity from punishment". What sort of punishment are we talking about here? How would you propose Steve and or myself to punished, and by whom? Is that a threat? Better yet, don't answer. Just drop the accusations of threats, accept the answer "I wasn't threatening anyone", and start talking about article content and not user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not melodramatic at all, I think I expressed it very mildly. I have never seen words like "not educable" used repeatedly against an editor before, and especially I have never seen other editors urged to ignore his contributions as you have done, basically because you have not yet brought him around to your opinion. User conduct is what this talk page has been about for a long time now, and what I am seeing here seems to be user misconduct writ large. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source

Is Bob Larson a reliable source for this article? Here's a recent video.[3].Momento (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And another.[4]. These are the two sources for the claim "Rawat has been termed a cult leader in anti-cult writings.Momento (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bob Larson for example has developed his view into a direction that might be considered strange nowadays. In the early eighties he was definitely more moderate. To compare his nowadays activities with his writings in 1982 is just another try to discredit a critical voice.Surdas (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the fact that he just used two non-reliable sources (blogs and YouTube videos are not WP:RS), Momento is once again making the same basic error based upon his misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. The passage in the article question reads "Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[113][114] as well as anti-cult writings.[115][116]" with [115] being a citation to Larson's book of cults. Is Bob Larson a reliable source for a claim that Rawat is a cult leader? No. Not even close. Bozo the Clown is a more reliable source than Bob Larson. What Momento fails to comprehend is that Wikipedia never claims that Rawat is a cult leader (if they did I or any number of other editors would have deleted the claim on sight). What Wikipedia does claim is that Rawat has been termed a cult leader in anti-cult writings. Bob Larson, being a notable author of anti-cult writings, is a reliable source on the narrow topic of what Bob Larson wrote in those anti-cult writings.

I do not believe at this point that Momento himself is educable, but several editors have expressed a concern about Momento's claims going unanswered. You may safely ignore them as being, once again, without merit. Responses by Momento will be ignored unless he indicates that he understands the difference between Wikipedia claiming that Rawat is a cult leader and Wikipedia claiming that Bob Larson said that Rawat is a cult leader.

BTW, the Bob Larson page could certainly do with a reception section. Perhaps some of you who are taking a break from editing the Prem Rawat page could pop over and improve the Bob Larson page. Right now it looks like an ad for Bob Larson. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced by your argument. You did say that you might be wrong, and I am inclined to agree with you. Where would you draw the line? If someone who we all agree is not a reliable source on a particular subject writes a book on that subject and includes defamatory remarks against a living person, under what circumstances should those remarks be mentioned in a BLP? Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You can report those remarks if and only if they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and weight. If you wish to change WP:BLP so that Wikipedia never reports defamatory comments about a BLP, I can point you to the right place to make that suggested change, but as of now it is allowed if it meets our notability and weight guidelines. See McMartin preschool trial for one of many examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I generally feel uncomfortable when an editor refers to other stuff that exists to support his/her contentions, rather than referring to policies and guidelines. There is no need to drastically change BLP, it provides a great deal of high quality guidance if read thoughtfully. I would say the article you quoted on a lady who was the innocent victim of a schizophrenic's allegations, and who apparently has never attracted any other controversy, hovers pretty close to the edge of what BLP allows. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. Of course reporting of defamatory comments will never be disallowed altogether, but apart from notability and weight, BLP prescribes other factors to consider in coming to an editorial decision. ...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all (2 people?)...Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Still seems to me that repeating serious defamatory opinions expressed by only two people 33 years ago runs counter to pretty much all of this, even if we try to defend it by saying, "Wikipedia doesn't say this, these two other people said it." Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In the above you are calling for exclusion on the grounds of lack of notability, undue weight, and BLP policy. I agree with those arguments. Earlier you appeared to argue for exclusion of most or all reports of a notable but not reliable source making defamatory comments about a BLP in the same way that our policies exclude defamatory comments about a BLP (as opposed to reporting such comments made by someone else), appearing to agree with Momento's entirely incorrect interpretation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I do not agree with that argument.

Let me repeat something I wrote before. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. This dispute was posted to DRN, and it was decided that it was complex and contentious enough to send back here to the talk page for further discussion, and at that time a call was put out for dispute resolution volunteers who are willing to come here and try to help resolve the dispute.

When I arrived here I identified a problem; this talk page has many appeals to Wikipedia policy on it that are not actually based upon any policy. That is the problem I am trying to address. I really don't care what the content of the page is, just that you all follow Wikipedia policies and that you don't argue for the right thing for the wrong reason. So please try to look at the above exchange from my perspective. I am seeing this:

• "That should be excluded because of invalid reason X."
• "X is an invalid reason for exclusion."
• "No, you are wrong! It should be excluded because of valid reason Y and debatable reason Z!"

My goal when faced with the above exchange is not to convince you that it should or should not be excluded, but to try to get you to understand why reason X does not apply and reason Y does. Then you can go forward and improve the article by correctly applying Wikipedia's policies without any further involvement from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply in this case?

This is offensive, " I do not believe at this point that Momento himself is educable,... You may safely ignore them as being, once again, without merit. Responses by Momento will be ignored unless he indicates that he understands the difference between Wikipedia claiming that Rawat is a cult leader and Wikipedia claiming that Bob Larson said that Rawat is a cult leader." As an aside, whether I agree with Momento or anyone else, this understanding is a delineation that is not easy to deal with for many editors nor is there a definitive position on at what point content is in Wikipedia's voice and when it shouldn't be. Saying an editor is not educable really means not educable per another editor opinion in this case which is not a particularly civil statement. I've spent time on this page because of the tone so yeah, I'm jumping in again. I just don't want this to deteriorate again no matter how frustrated anyone gets. Best wishes. PS: Wikipedia is for the competent is an essay not a policy or guideline. Wikipedia defines itself as an encyclopedia anyone can edit rather than an encyclopedia only the competent can edit. I'm also not saying anyone here is incompetent (olive (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

I understand where you are coming from, but, alas, there really are Wikipedia editors who appear to be ineducable. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, said this in March of 2005:

"Our social policies are not a suicide pact. They are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. [...] We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia [...] we can cut some serious slack to [those] who are doing the good work of defending us from nonsense."

Whether WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies in this case is not a matter of opinion. There are situations where you can make an argument as to whether a policy applies, but this is a situation where policy is clear. I explained the policy to him, he refused to accept it, and thus I concluded that he appears to be ineducable. Later in the conversation, when he refused to accept the fact that Wikipedia has separate articles Rock and roll and Rock music or that the the book he referenced talks about the latter, I came to the conclusion that it is useless trying to explain anything to him. As much as I would like everything on Wikipedia to be friendly and polite, we have a policy called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for a reason. --18:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I can't agree with you. Policy is a whole lot less cut and dried than you make out. Witness the amount of time it took to deal with the lead of the WP:Verifiability policy and the number of editor interpretations on what that policy means. So conversation on how a policy is interpreted is based in opinion, in this case yours. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your interpretation but it isn't the only interpretation and in any case, a more stimulating procedure and one that will short cut reams of discussion is to agree to disagree and take this to a Notice Board. Deal with the content and not on maligning another editor no matter your opinion of him. Its not about being nice and polite, its about creating an environment where the best work is done, and I don't think I've ever seen that people in a work place are more productive over the long haul if they are attacked. I don't know if this is case of tendentious editing or a case where two editors are digging their heels in. I'm afraid I've seen tendentious editing accusations used to win arguments so I don't have a lot of faith in that idea. I'd get more input if I were you.(olive (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

At one point Guy wrote "The fact of the matter is that when the Los Angeles times or the Washington Post reports that someone made a claim, Wikipedia reporting that they made an exceptional claim is not itself an exceptional claim". I agree. I have never argued that reporting Mishler's claims is "an exceptional claim". My issue is that Mishler's claim is exceptional, as Guy has described it above, and is covered by WP:EXCEPTIONAL as if he wrote it. Otherwise comments given in an interview or spoken on the air would not be subject to the same scrutiny as would be necessary if written. If Mishler wrote his claims in a self-published newsletter, personal website, blog, forum or tweet he would largely be unacceptable as a source. And you should never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people.Momento (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento, please pick one of the following:

[A]: When the Los Angeles Times reports that Person X made claim Y in a self-published blog, Wikipedia cannot report that Person X made claim Y, because blogs are not reliable sources.

[B]: When the Los Angeles Times reports that Person X made claim Y in a self-published blog, Wikipedia can report that Person X made claim Y, because newspapers are reliable sources.

Please note that there may be other reasons for or against exclusion, such as notability or undue weight. Also note that we all agree that Wikipedia cannot report claim Y as if it were an established fact. I am only asking the exact and specific question above, not some related or implied question.

So, is your position A or B? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

B. Unless there are other reasons for exclusion, such as exceptional claims, notability or undue weight.Momento (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And when you're ready Guy, please point out where I "refused to accept the fact that Wikipedia has separate articles Rock and roll and Rock music".Momento (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree that when the Los Angeles Times reports that someone made an exceptional claim (See WP:EXCEPTIONAL) that reporting that he made an exceptional claim not itself an exceptional claim? Please note that "Rawat offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility" and "Rawat is a cult leader" are both exceptional claims, both fail WP:V, both are only allowed because someone else said them, and that whatever rule you apply to one must be equally applied to the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already agreed to this proposal two posts up.[5] Rawat's claim that he "offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility" is not "exceptional" as many teachers and researchers of mediation, yoga, spirituality, religion etc make similar claims. In any case Rawat's claim is supported by "multiple high quality sources" including the scholars Derks and Van der Lans, Melton, Downton, Galanter etc. The claim Rawat is a cult leader is not an "exceptional claim" either as this was a common, if uninformed, accusation by members of some fundamentalist religions. However, the sources are so biased and extreme that they fall into the category of Questionable sources, "Questionable sources are those with an apparent conflict of interest" and "they are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". Mishler's claim that "a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat" is without doubt an "exceptional claim" as the murder/suicide of 900 people resulted in the largest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001. No "high quality sources" support this "exceptional claim". Momento (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "'Rawat is a cult leader' is not an 'exceptional claim' either as this was a common, if uninformed, accusation by members of some fundamentalist religions", you are still failing to understand WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this time in the other direction. It is an exceptional claim no matter how many people believe it. There are 2.2 billion Christians who believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and 1.6 billion Muslims who believe that in the time of Muhammad, God split the moon in two separate halves and then re-joined them. Those are exceptional claims no matter how many people believe them. You appear to be confusing WP:EXCEPTIONAL with WP:FRINGE.

Re: "Mishler's claim [...] is without doubt an 'exceptional claim'", are you implying that this means it should be excluded, or do you still believe that when a reliable source reports that Person X made exceptional claim Y, that report is not itself exceptional and can be included?

Re: "Rawat's claim that he 'offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility' [...] is supported by "multiple high quality sources", Name one. Go ahead name one source that allows my to WP:VERIFY this completely unprovable claim as being true.

The Big Picture: Given the fact that you keep getting basic Wikipedia policies wrong, and the fact that your misinterpretation always seems to lead to the conclusion that negative material should be removed from this article, I have no confidence that any further efforts by me will result in your understanding our policies. Because of this I am now declaring my attempt to resolve this dispute a failure and unwatching this page (which means that you can reply but I will not see it) and will leave this for others (probably administrators applying Wikipedia:General sanctions) to deal with.

Lest anyone think that I am singling out Momento or supporting the other parties in this dispute, I am not particularly happy with anyone's behavior here. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Guy won't read this, I'll keep it brief. In this section alone, Guy's comments to me have been described as "offensive" and "maligning another editor" by a neutral and experienced editor. Guy falsely claimed that "I refused to accept the fact that Wikipedia has separate articles Rock and roll and Rock music". I made no such comment and Guy refused to provide a diff that shows it despite me asking for proof. Guy claimed that "I refused to accept the fact that the the book I referenced talks about Rock music not Rock and Roll". That's correct, I couldn't agree with Guy's claim because Bob Larson's forward in "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion" says "Above all, I pray that the purpose of this book will be plainly understood: Christ is the positive alternative to what youth seeks in rock and roll music". And finally he asked me exactly the same question twice, proving that he doesn't read my replies carefully. Not bad for one section. Further to Guy's insistence that his OR opinion trumps WP:VER, in the section above titled "Larson's opinion of modern music?" I write "Larson has written several books about Rock and Roll and Satanism" in which Larson claims, Rock and Roll is Satanic". To which Guy replies "It isn't true. Rock and roll is a genre of music from the 1940s and early 1950s, and Larson never said it was satanic". When I provide as sources two books by Larson "Rock and Roll, the Devil's Diversion" [15] and "Hippies, Hindus, and Rock & Roll" , Guy replies with this incredible WP:VER defying piece of OR "Bob Larson was writing about Rock music#Golden age (mid- to late 1960s) no matter what name he called it". In conclusion, Guy has singled me out for constant harassment in which he has called me "uneducable", claimed I said things that I didn't and rejected my policy based support of WP:VER against his OR as "misinterpreting our policies and insisting that other editors follow nonexistent rules".Momento (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought on Wikipedia: Weight and Wikipedia: Fringe

Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given. Not judging one way or the other just points to consider.

• I've isolated these comments here so as to not intrude on the actual discussion. These are just some asides that may or may not be useful.(olive (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

You make an excellent point. WP:WEIGHT has some good advice on how to deal with this. As an aside, certain interactions I have had recently with an individual who wants the passage in question removed for reasons that violate Wikipedia policy in no way implies that I have any problem with the above, which is an argument to remove the passage in question removed for reasons that follow Wikipedia policy. (I really don't care what the content of the article is. I just want the rules to be followed.) In my opinion, (and of course my opinion carries no special weight) you are correct, and the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader.

Here is my opinion of the right way for you to deal with this. Seek consensus, with the goal of getting as many involved editors as possible to agree with you (if you can't get them to agree, reconsider whether you are right). Document the consensus and put that info in one comment so you can refer to it later. Once you have done that, edit the page to match the consensus, and if it gets repeatedly re-inserted bring it up at WP:ANI with your evidence of consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say "you" here I assume you mean the general you. I have been a pretty much uninvolved editor on this article and intend to stay that way. I also don't care one way or the other about the article content as long as its NPOV, but I have become interested in maintaining some equilibrium on the talk page. I do watch the page and saw that the weight/fringe point might not have occurred to editors here, so thought to add it. (olive (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

How can you 'seek consensus' with people who are not prepared to study the article content and the sources in depth? Sorry I think you're both possibly missing something. Everything you've suggested pre-supposes (for a successful outcome) that there would be enough involved editors interested enough to stay the course of what, in practical terms, would be an impossibly protracted debate that would be doomed to compromise in favour of allowing Momento and like-minded supporters of PR the benefit of the doubt. Your approaches (however reasonable) would never work because, as you yourselves admit, you are not interested or prepared to get into the the nitty gritty of the subject. And of course neither would I or anyone else who doesn't have a vested interest. However the supporters of Rawat would be and so, by virtue of simply waiting for others to lose interest, they get to systematically fault and remove all criticism - largely by arguing that things are "undue weight" whilst keeping mum about the sources which put the lie to that.

It's unrealistic to think that just by judging by the superficial rules you can make fair judgement about an edit which appears to be what you are attempting to do. The one you are currently discussing is a good example. The inclusion of the sentence that "Rawat has been termed a cult leader in anti-cult writings" maybe is apparently not well-enough supported by the given sources. But the fact remains that there may be alternate sources for that which could be found which have either been removed or deemed superfluous. Have you seen how busy and eager Momento was removing all the sources from the Lede? All with the excuse that they appeared (were repeated) elsewhere. Have you looked to see where else anti-cult writings call Rawat a cult-leader? Can you be bothered? No, so you assume wrongly it's undue weight. That is why I think it is foolish for Olive to speak as if she is doing a service by coming here and 'rushing to judgement' on things that superficially look wrong or as if they are giving 'undue weight'.

On the other hand, Guy's intolerance of Momento's non-arguments and his portrayal of him as 'uneducable 'makes refreshing sense to me who has been struggling to reason with someone who is evidently impervious to reason and who has utterly tried my patience to breaking point over a period of years. So Olive's defence of someone who I suspect, she would never have the patience or interest herself to tolerate in a proper debate, sounds like a cop out. PatW (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information about Ron Geaves

There are three predominant editors here who are systematically concerning themselves with only drawing to attention reasons to exclude criticism, and no-one else remains who is armed sufficiently with knowledge of the subject (or has the time or patience) to argue against them. When Olive first arrived here her first impulse was to remove she removed the 'unsourced' information that Professor Geaves (the scholar frequently used as a source here) was also a long-standing devotee of Prem Rawat. Momento immediately clapped his hands gleefully in agreement with her decision to remove (read 'hide') that information. He wasn't about to tell her the source that says this. In fact it remained for me to explain where that source may be found and refer her to another article which included that information etc. I don't think she ever reinstated that information. Correct me if I'm wrong. So Momento wins again. Same with the Jonestown stuff. It seems none of you are aware of the huge amount of material from contemporary sources that justifies this material being kept. A lot of that has already been removed. So Momento wins because you are more concerned with the danger of asserting 'undue weight' than looking into it in depth. A recipe for a skewed article. Maybe what you really need to be doing is adopting Guy's 'bold' approach which is to identify tendentious editors and get rid of them. Olive has in my opinion committed (unintentional) errors here. Firstly to say I was 'attacking her' when I was trying to be brutally frank, secondly to hold Momento's aggressive and tendentious editing here as being the desirable form of 'bold'. Guy is the 'bold' one to draw the line. Thirdly to make edits without properly looking into the facts has proven to be rash. Back to my Wiki-break. PatW (talk) in the middle of the night, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact I clearly am not judging Pat but as usual you seem determined to attack as you have from the beginning; that more than anything is why I will not get involved in this article past mentioning policy or guidelines that may have been forgotten in the discussion. I am not taking a position one way or the other despite your desire to say that I am, and saying it over and over does not make it true. Further your allegations in regards to my actions always border on untruth. Further, stop assuming you know what I would do in any situation when in fact you are even misinterpreting what is before your eyes. Let me say it this way. I will not support attacks on any editor. It doesn't matter who I agree with or do not. I will not support attacks. My position is not negotiable and is not open to discussion especially with someone who has behaved as you have.(olive (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

Olive I genuinely feel I've raised objections to your actions here, no more no less. I may have sounded too harsh for your sensitivities. OK I'm sorry. Can we beg to disagree on that and move on? I've striked out my comments above because a) it was late (about 3 AM) and I slightly regret my choice of words. b) I just want to discuss the edits you've made to this article and not you. In this thread above you said you'd restored the information (which you'd removed) that scholar Geaves was a student of Rawat. Here's what you said - "Added with a slight adjustment to give equal weight to Geaves as an academic in the field of comparative religion and as a Rawat follower. Both seem critical. (olive (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC))". I gather you did that here and here subsequent to my making you aware of the source. My question is where is this information now? It appears to have been removed from the article. Did you remove it again? If so why? PatW (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this the edit you are looking for? Jonty Monty (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it would seem it is. Thanks. So please Olive, what compelled you to removed the source again after your previous words of assurance (I just mentioned above) that you agreed with my argument to re-add and would do so? I don't recall having discussed this edit further with you. PatW (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• First mention now in the article:

Ron Geaves, an expert in comparative religions and a student of Prem Rawat, writes that Rawat, rather than considering himself a charismatic leader, deemphasizes the sealing of the master disciple relationship, and focuses on correct practice and staying in touch through participation or listening.[107][108]

Jonty Monty is citing the second mention which should not repeat what is already in the article, and so which I cleaned up to comply with that convention. This kind of comment is entirely consistent with Pat's accusations against me, for the record. Whether this kind of treatment is deliberate to push away an editor who they feel is some kind of threat, and whether the treatment is also consistent with how other editors are treated on this article is a concern. To Guy and Steve, I'll be moving on. This isn't how I want to spend my Wikipedia time. Good luck.(olive (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

I was hoping to save you both some time by showing the diff. If I had looked closer I may have spotted that it was duplicated elsewhere. There was no harm meant Littleolive and hope you didn't take it that way. Jonty Monty (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, and no worries.(olive (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

I, like Jonty, was SIMPLY confused since that phrase vanished from the Charisma and Leadership section. This article changes so fast it's sometimes very hard to keep up with changes. I was word-searching for the phrase 'student of Rawat' (which was the original wording you removed from there) at 3 AM after a hard day's work and, of course, it wasn't showing as it's actually "student of Prem Rawat". Yes, if I'd looked more carefully I may have also spotted that it was duplicated elsewhere. Of course I now see that is a totally appropriate edit. I'm astonished that you could think I am trying to push you away from the article when I've actually been begging you (amongst others) to get stuck in. If you don't want to do that fine, but I find it quite unfair that you single me out as the bad guy here that's put you off. I've apologised numerous times and you still choose to judge me and the criticisms I've raised here harshly. Other non-involved editors have considered my criticisms reasonable and valid. It's almost as if you think the problems with this article are solely my fault and everything would be just fine if I just vanished - which it's quite tempting to do given such lack of faith.PatW (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have another go at bowing out of all this. I'm 56 tomorrow so I'll consider it a birthday resolution. Bye and no hard feelings!PatW (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Happy Birthday and all best wishes.(olive (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

This section contains 1238 words; all unnecessary, all about nothing. I don't know what it is about this topic, but nobody appears to consider anyone else's time. Concise? It's a great word. Let's be it. Rumiton (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection lifted

Article is no longer fully protected. Do with it what you will. In good faith, I've been discussing how to resolve this dispute off-wiki with other DR folk to try and bring this dispute to a successful resolution. Comments like those made in this post are unhelpful and hurtful. As such, I decline to continue in any form of dispute resolution here. I wish you all good luck. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you go take the untruthful "vandalism" banner from the article'Momento (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the history of the article before pointing the finger at me, you'd have seen that the template was added by the admin that changed the protection settings, and not myself. I have changed the template for you. Good day. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Look again Steven. I didn't comment about "who added the template".Momento (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment read as "on the way out, clean up the mess you created". If that's not how your comment was intended, then I apologise, but this is a wiki - there was nothing stopping you from changing the template yourself. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My little Wikibreak is over. What an amazing experience! I have learned, that even experienced editors’ resilience can be limited in dealing with a controversial article. I have learned, that that hapless Jonestown bit could/should go, if not per Exceptional claim, then per Weight. I have heard of an animal named “unbiased critic”. I have heard of editors unwatching this article. I hope, LittleOlive will please still be watching over us all.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been educational for us all. I can't help feeling it could have been more enjoyable, though. Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Info box

Can one of the sysops who can do something here please look at the infobox? Prem Rawat's date of birth has turned into a Skype phone number. I hope this situation is resolved soon. Rumiton (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any changes? It looks like just a normal date of birth to me. Did you recently install Skype - and could you send a screenshot of what it looks like? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 19:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine on mine. Although the other photo is still better. I don't see that head and shoulders is universally applied.Momento (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not install Skype very recently. I can't attach a file to a Wikipedia e-mail or to a talk page post. How can I send it to you? Rumiton (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might either e-mail me and I will reply with an attachment, or if you believe me, just go ahead and put in the date as 10 Dec 1957. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I recall this issue being raised on the wp:Reference desk/computing. I too have had it happen, possibly when using Internet Explorer. I think it depends on the browser you are using. I just had a look and it looks normal, using Google Chrome. - 220 of ^Borg 23:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it came up on 9 April. Here's the link: WP:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 April 9#IE8 converting numbers into telephone numbers where I myself mention that it can occur using IE8 under Windows 7. - 220 of ^Borg 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 220. So Steve, can you please change the date to 10 Dec 1957? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just did it myself. It should only be until a fix comes out for new Internet Explorer versions. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This situation involves a widely used and accepted template that is used on thousands of articles. Therefore why is this article singled out, since the issue will be seen for similar uses elsewhere? This involves obvious defects on the part of the Microsoft/Skype software, so how much effort should be making to adapt to that? Dl2000 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many computers have this problem (mine does), but I am told it applies only to certain numbers or dates, which are identified as possible Skype phone numbers. I don't think it is a lot of effort just to leave it as is until IE or Skype or somebody comes up with a solution. Is it a problem for you? Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way that you can show everyone what it looks like on your computer when using the template? Do you know of other users with the same problem at this or other articles? Jonty Monty (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to remove functionality from Wikipedia because you have buggy software on your computer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Jonty Monty (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

See contribution by 220 above, it clearly isn't just me. I can e-mail a screenshot if you send me an e-mail address by WP mail. I don't believe I can send an attachment by WP mail. Rumiton (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody reverted. Now an unknowable but apparently significant number of users see a confusing and nonsensical link in the info box, but that's OK, because "functionality" has been preserved. My faith in Wikipedia and the wisdom of the crowds it embraces remains strong, but outcomes like this challenge it severely. Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims

I asked for some input on "Exceptional Claims" on WP:VER talk since my understanding was rejected by several editors on this page. Below is my question and two responses.

I would like a bit of advice about "Exceptional claims". I assume it means that extra care must be taken when an editor wants to introduce an "exceptional", "unusual", "out of the ordinary" claim into an article. So that if an editor wants to add that "Mr A owned a dog" into an article, it is not an "exceptional" claim and one decent source for that info would suffice. But if an editor wants to add that "Mr A had sex with his dog" that would be an "exceptional claim" and it would require "exceptional sources" or "multiple high-quality sources" before an editor could put it into an article. Further, I believe that even quoting someone making an "exceptional claim" requires "exceptional sources". So that if a newspaper reports that "Mr X said that Mr A had sex with dogs" we would want more than just Mr X's opinion before adding to an article "Mr X said that Mr A had sex with dogs". The reason I have formed this view is that although the vast majority of quotes contained in Wiki articles are benign, ordinary and undisputed what policy stops an editor from adding unsubstantiated and/or extreme quotes to an article simply by saying "Mrs X says Mr X is a pedophile". Shouldn't we ask for "multiple high-quality sources" other than Mrs X before linking Mr X with pedophilia for the whole world to Google?Momento (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people have tried that dodge, and yes, consensus is that such quotes generally violate WP:BLP. If that claim by Mrs. X became the topic of a major controversy, though, it would still be reasonable to mention, though: think of Anita Hill re Clarence Thomas.—Kww(talk) 07:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I had added multiple to Exceptional purely because of this reasoning. If my memory serves me right, I had also added challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest to Exceptional, again for this reason. A quote by someone that Mr. A had sex with dogs would be a primary quote. Exceptional sources by definition would mean those that adhere to the highest standards of independence in sources. That is one reason I had added the term multiple sources to even WELLKNOWN. Wifione ^Message 07:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both.Momento (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The spoken Wikipedia

Here is an interesting link about someone called Ray Wott. [6] Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How amazing! How tedious!--Rainer P. (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

As suggested by several editors "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.[65] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use and that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill. The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission", comes under the category "Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given". I propose removing it.Momento (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot is the only thing i can think of with your proposal Surdas (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

These two articles are just essays, not policies or guidelines. Anybody can write an essay, so we don't know if they ...represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. The first one is summarised as Insisting that a non-BLP issue is in fact a BLP crisis is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. The second is so badly written it is hard to grasp its intention, but it seems to be echoing the first. So the question that needs to be considered remains: Is the material that Momento has identified a BLP issue or not? Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no policy based arguments, I'll remove it in 24 hours.Momento (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

it says "possibly would" and "may be", you are trying to make your own policy so it seems. You are constantly removing sourced material that has any form of critics towards rawat. This kind of a whitewashing attitude proves to me that this is a personality cult, where no negative aspect of the leader is allowed. Surdas (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bob Mischler cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has read his former website. And Surdas, sorry to tell you that your attitude to support anything negative and oppose anything positive, even if coming from doubtful sources, besides going against the "living person policy", seems to me a life-long anti-Prem crusade which I cannot understand. By the way, I am translating he Wikipedia article on Surdas from English into Spanish. --PremieLover (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

You showed confusion in this area before. Bob Mishler died in 1979, long before there was an internet. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is thoroughly spiked with criticism, as can easily be seen in Momento's collection here from 7 October 2012.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Where? Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to link directly. But it's not archived yet. You can navigate by the timestamps.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote.[7]Momento (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian customs

I think this piece is much too long and we should remove the material in bold - "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash (and) jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.”[40] A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts.[41] prompting the Indian government to investigate the finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas.[38][39][42] In June 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country.[43] Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology.(talk) 02:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It was big news at the time but it was a very long time ago. While the story probably still has a place in the article, your shortening removes nothing important and appears justified. Rumiton (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps fairness dictates that we make some mention of the DLM spokesman saying the cash and goods belonged to followers, and were intended for festival expenses, rather than leaving a possible implication that they were for private use. Rumiton (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology", indicates that the incident was innocent.Momento (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Innocent of smuggling, certainly, but there remains a suggestion that the money might have belonged to Prem Rawat. We can fix that by making it, "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash (and) jewelry which they said had not been properly declared. A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover festival expenses.[41] The affair prompted the Indian government to investigate the finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas.[38][39][42] In June 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country.[43] Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology." Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'm happy with that.Momento (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Here [8] is a very long discussion that concerns COI, a subject that has come up around here in the past. I couldn't get through it all, but it looks at the German Wikipedia and seems to confirm that COI should only be invoked where monetary gain is a factor (so Catholics are OK to edit Pope articles if they are not being paid by the church to do so.) That was what we thought. Rumiton (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

More recent pics

How do editors feel about replacing the 2003 photo of the Salamander Peace Conference with a more recent one, perhaps from one of the EU events? Obviously we will need to get permission from the owner. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer a shot that shows Rawat talking. The current one is boring, the previous one shows activity.Momento (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess you mean the photo in the infobox. That seems to revolve around how strong the convention or guideline mentioned for head and shoulder shots is. Not sure how to find that out. Either way a more recent photo would be an improvement. Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Momento."Salamander" Peace Conference? I suppose you mean Salamanca Peace Conference. Salamanca is a Spanish city with perhaps the first university founded in Europe. I like the Salamanca photo first because I am Spanish, and also because that is the only picture of that time. I would prefer an additional photo of a EU event. But I accept anything. Thanks to all editors (and supervisors) for removing the opinions of "scholars" (sociologists, pychologists, journalists and similar) who showed little or no knowledge of yoga and Eastern doctrines and (as I said before) whose opinions had the same value as the opinion of an electronics engineer on greek art.--PremieLover (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, Salamanca. Didn't mean to offend the Spanish among us. The article is not heavy on pics, maybe we could put another one in. I will check the copyright situation with the owners, who will presumably be TPRF. Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively we could update the pic situation with a shot from his acceptance of the [9] Brandlaureate Award last year. We would need to approach that organisation for permission. Rumiton (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think one more picture would not be an excess. According to a Chinese saying a picture is worth a thousand words. A group of the brightest intellectuals listening to Prem Rawat says more than the opinion of a sociologist who thinks Prem’s message is banal. A Spanish saying: the thief thinks every one is like him, that is, we all tend to think others are like us. And an intellectual who thinks that the soul can only be explained with sophisticated intellectual jargon proves the banality of trying to understand the soul with the mind and bookish knowledge. --PremieLover (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime can we go back to the previous one where you can see that he's talking. I asked for evidence of the preference for plain head and shoulders shots but got no reply.Momento (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, and I noticed no one responded to your request for more direction on the head and shoulders thing. I think people trying to read any article on a mobile phone would have trouble with the pics, but in the interest of article stability, I feel we should give it another 24 hours, then make the change. In the meantime, TPRF have agreed to release some pics of the EU events to Wikimedia Commons. Once that happens, we can discuss here which one to use. Rumiton (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) This [10] advice seems to adequately cover the subject. Rumiton (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Made the change. I would like to see a more recent pic, though. That one is coming up to 6 years ago. Rumiton (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that pic is more meaningful and contains information beyond a wanted poster. As an up-to-date foto I suggest one from the 2010 Brussels event.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can give us a link and everyone likes it, we can ask TPRF to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this one?http://www.wopg.org/images/stories/Galleries/News/Prem_Rawat/2010/Brussels/100629_BXL_VIP_mbw_MBW5759.png He is speaking at the EU Parliament in June 2010, to his right Pawel Pawlowitsch Borodin, to his left Gianni Pittella.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. While we're doing this, does anyone have any other pics they would like to put forward for consideration? Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should have other people in the info photo. If you google Rawat images there are a couple of him talking.Momento (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It's not a title photo, and carries essential information which is hard to convey verbally.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is being suggested for the infobox, just for the EU Parliament section? Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Right.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, the picture Rumiton suggests with other people besides is ok. But any other too.--PremieLover (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked TPRF to upload the pic with the EU politicians for possible inclusion in that part of the article. Meanwhile, we can look for portrait/speaking photos to replace the old one in the infobox. Suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

One witness?

Who ever this witness is (in bold), I don't believe they deserve so much space and should be removed - 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.[7][14] But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.[7] Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers.[15] 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."[16] Enthusiastic new members spread the message that the 13-year-old Rawat could reveal God.[17] He returned to India later that year with 300 westerners, who chartered an Air India Boeing 747 to accompany him and stayed in the mission's ashrams.[9]

The "witness" isn't the source, that was Downton. He saw fit to include that statement, so it apparently represented an aspect of the subject that he considered worth mentioning. (That doesn't mean we have to agree with him.) Rumiton (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Downton is a valuable source but I would rather use a summation from Downton than quote an individual from his 240+ page book. Quoting an individual can be undue weight. Maybe there's something in Downton that covers Rawat's playful nature without being a quote.Momento (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is in quote marks, which seems strange. Downton should be reporting in his own words what someone said. Maybe the quotes are a mistake. The full text doesn't seem to be available online anymore. Do you have a copy? Rumiton (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do and it is a quote. - Tina spent three days at the cabin before receiving the Knowledge and during that time, she saw the playful side of the guru. "Guru Maharaj Ji played the whole time he was there. He never got heavy. People would come to his door and he would throw cans of water and paint at them. He played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for us to see, and took movies of everybody. It was just constant play the whole time he was there and he loved it. Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees." I'm going to take it out and see if I can find a summary or Downton's words to replace it.Momento (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Far too long

This paragraph is far too long. We just need to say Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy and the premies rebuttal for NPOV. We can do without the material in bold - the argument between premies and the media is repetitive and including a biased individual's unsubstantiated quote is undue weight etc - "Critics said etc".

"1973 has been called the "peak of the Mission's success", DLM was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated and several hundred centers and dozens of ashrams formed. [3][46] And while followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives, public attitudes were often unsympathetic.[14] Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s with some media saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah".[14][47] Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".[48][49] Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong.[50] Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines[18] and sports cars, some of them gifts.[51][52] Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".[53] "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said.[50] Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him.[54] They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.[41], Momento (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed the excess. Kept Rawat's response since he deserves a right of reply.Momento (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Images

No problem with your text rearrangement, but MOS:IMAGES says that right justification is the default position for pictures, and that faces should generally be shown looking towards the text. Faces looking away from the article seem quite weird when you become aware of the convention. Rumiton (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was trying to avoid the big blank space under the lead. I'll put them back.Momento (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Put photo's back. Can we get one from 1973. to add to that section which is very dense with type?Momento (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been talking to someone in TPRF about old photos, though they haven't given me anything to use yet. Maybe if you can find a good pic on Google images or somewhere, we can get them to OK it for public use. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Father-Guru

From that time, Rawat spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his guru had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace. It's not a strong preference but from a copyeditor's point of view, in this paragraph which is mostly about his family, I think "father" works better than "guru." It has been made clear they are one and the same. Rumiton (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The super reverence Rawat has for Shri Hans is not for his father but his guru. Why don't we say " travelling as Shri Hans had".Momento (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit better but this paragraph is not about his feelings, more about his actions and those of his family. In the context father still seems to work best to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Massive revert of content

Please discuss at least, and get agreement at most to revert hours of work by editors on this article. There are no banned editors on this article, editors have paid their dues, and using 'banned editors' as reason for a massive revert is both an attack, a straw man, and disingenuous. Please discuss your concerns here. I have no opinion one way or the other on the content and if there's a consensus to revert I'd see that as a better option than a massive unilateral revert. (olive (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Sorry you're wrong. Rumiton and Momento made a series of edits over the last few days filleting out material critical of the subject. Two grounds for reverting: (1) As you will see from their Talk pages they have in fact been indef topic banned by Blade today.(2) Per WP:BRD: they made bold edits which are largely POV. I exercised the R of BRD. Onus is on those that want the B to stay to argue for it. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the only other editor supporting their edits on the talk page is Rainer P., now also topic banned. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't see their talk pages and don't have them watch listed. I don't like it that an editor comes in claims 'bold' on a highly contentious article and reverts content created before editors were banned while claiming the edits were made by banned users. They weren't. Further the revert can't be contested with the editors on both sides banned. I have an great distaste for that kind of unilateral editing and it always makes me feel suspicious of motive and influence. I will assume good faith. I'm sorry actually that editors were banned. As someone from the outside the article seemed more encyclopedic in recent times than it had been, equally positive and negative towards Rawat rather than containing all of the gossipy little details that mean nothing in themselves but add up to lots. However, I revert once and won't discuss further. Thanks (olive (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

That is a lack of AGF verging on a personal attack. It's also nonsensical. They were topic banned for, in part, the edits that I subsequently reverted. The topic ban clearly speaks volumes for the integrity and validity of those edits. Happily, Jimbo Wales has now added to my restoration of the deleted material with some further relevant material. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm being honest with you. I have concerns and don't agree that your edit summary was accurate or your action appropriate. Despite my concerns I told you clearly I assume good faith. I've been watching this article and the one suits all topic ban does not address the editors as individuals on this article although it does address other difficulties. Since there were no diffs presented in the topic ban I'd say the only one who knows the specifics of this ban is Blade. I don't think its fair to say you chose a point to revert to and then advise that everything in that revert is reason for the revert and a ban given there are no diffs. At any rate I am ticked off and apologize if that rubbed off on you. I'll leave you to it. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

I've nothing more to add than what I've said on your talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First off, I want to say that I knew going into this that people would have questions about my actions, so I'm completely ready for it and will happily answer to questions (this is a very unusual action, but permissible and one I think is justified). The bans come from observing the goings-on here since early April; the problems are very hard to package in diffs but were very evident if you watched everything. And finally, I didn't ban people just for having a particular point of view on the subject, as should be evident. Though I certainly have an opinion, it's not strong enough that I have a vested interest beyond conforming to Wikipedia's basic policies; if it was, I wouldn't be acting as an administrator here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012

Add to External links

• Prem Rawat/Archive 50 at IMDb
• Works by or about Prem Rawat/Archive 50 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The IMDb link doesn't add much - only three documentary appearances noted there, and the subject is not an actor per se. Worldcat link seems more appropriate at Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations. Generally, it would be better to update that related article to make any notable additions to its list. Dl2000 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you believe IMDb is supposed to be limited to actors, but I don't really care, either. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in lead

I've realized again that this,"Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[2][3] as well as in anti-cult writings.[4][5]" is isolated in the lead with out content which creates balance. For example the scholar Chryssides lists the teachings of Prem Rawat as an NRM. I note also that cult is not a term used by many scholars to describe since it is overly general, as Chryssides notes. This is a BLP and I have serious concerns about the addition of an obviously pejorative sentence in the first sentence of the lead with out balancing content which creates a POV and slants the article. I will be adding content to balance and with that added content may move the descriptions of what Rawat is to its own paragraph in the lead. Given Wikipedia's stern position on BLP I am assuming no one will protest the addition of balancing content. If so, please discuss here. Until I can add the balancing content probably tomorrow I have moved the content here per BLP. I note that some of the sources are questionable, I'll deal with that issue here, too.

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

Note: I just checked the edit history and see there was an effort to remove this. Rather than remove I am suggesting balance. With out added content this violates NPOV and the term is pejorative so lets add balance.(olive (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

If a preponderance of reliable sources describe the man is a cult leader, then there is little that can be done to avoid noting that reality. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I will be adding content that gives other views, as Chryssides does, a well known NRM scholar, making sure the sources for "cult are strong and then re adding content once the POV element has been eliminated, rather than removing the cult content outright. As is, the claim that he is a cult leader is only part of the story and as such weights the lead both because the content is isolated form other views, but also because of its position in the opening sentence. I have to run now but will be adding content tomorrow. Thanks for the comment. I feel in a BLP content that creates a one sided view should be eliminated until it can be NPOVised, but if others want to revert me or want me to revert myself, no worries, and I am happy to do that.(olive (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

I see you have reverted. No problem, and I'll be adding content tomorrow. I note that there was no discussion to add the content in the first place and it has been removed in the past, apparently. Still the solution is to simply add the appropriate balancing content.(olive (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

That depends on if the non-cult view of this person is significant and appears in sufficiently reliable sources. There are many out there who view Osama bin Laden as a martyr and hero, but that point of view does not get equal footing in bin Laden's article. You can't just add glowing praise for the sake of "balance", that is not what WP:NPOV is about. Tarc (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the last week or so I've been looking back over the history of this article and its talk page. What is apparent is that, by sheer persistence, supporters of Prem Rawat (apparently) have successfully filleted the article over the last 2 years and removed a considerable amount of material that might be perceived as negative. The key editors in this are currently topic banned from this article. The cult-leader edit discussed in this thread, originally made by Jimbo in February 2011 and which he recently restored is an illustrative case in point. It was soon, after Jimbo's first edit, subject to intense lobbying by Prem Rawat supporters to have it removed. In this thread a compromise was reached where the "cult leader" reference was removed in exchange for Prem Rawat's movement being described as "sometimes referred to as a cult". This was effected by this edit. When the "non-Prem Rawat" editors had dropped out of editing the article 18 months later the "pro" Prem Rawat (and now topic banned) editors quietly agreed amongst themselves on the Talk page that the compromise reference should come out too. And that was done. Of course it was open to neutral editors to get involved and stop it, but if one looks over the talk page over the last 2 years there's a clear pattern of driving off neutral editors by the volume and persistence of pro-Prem Rawat posting. Much damage appears to have been done to this article i the last year, and particularly in the last 6 months. Compared to where it was in 2011, this now looks more like a hagiography than a serious bio, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc: Glowing Praise? Gosh who said that! I'll add content reliably sourced, probably scholarly sources, that describe Prem Rawat and his movement For example, as I said above Chryssides, an NRM scholar, lists Rawat's movement as an NRM. If there is contention over my addition, I'm happy to take the issue to the NPOV notice board or possibly the BLP notice board to get an outside opinion. I've refused in the past to get into an wrangle on this article. This is a pretty simple and straight forward issue so I can't see any problems with adding a more complete description of Rawat.(olive (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't quite agree with you. First, Jimbo's addition was added with out discussion then and now, so should be open to scrutiny. I can't speak to any earlier than a few months ago, but I saw several things: the results of editors fighting the persistence of an editor now banned from all NRM articles, and the encyclopedia, and a lot of cherry picked content strung together to slant the article, and arguments in the pages I saw were legitimate discussion points. This is where I came in. Who was or is right in all of this? In the end I don't care really. I simply want to correct a glaring error in NPOV. What we have to remember is that in describing what Rawat was teaching we have to do just that. That is, in part, what this article is about. After that we can describe the influence and reaction to that teaching and to him. All are necessary. Straight on descriptions of Rawat and what he does will probably be more positive in nature. Reactions and influence are probably divided in terms pejorative and positive reaction, and appropriate weight of both must be included. Do I want to get involved here. No. But the edit I saw today is an error in NPOV editing, in a BLP, and needs to be corrected. At any rate I'll add the content and if there's contention, I'm happy to get NB input. (olive (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil, I was responding to your comment that "I note that there was no discussion to add the content in the first place and it has been removed in the past, apparently." My point was that there was a discussion, and a consensus agreement had been reached: i.e. it should come out, but only if the movement was described in the lead as "sometimes referred to as a cult". But that was recently deleted (August this year) at a time when only the now topic banned editors were participating. Arguably, it follows from the original consensus discussion that if "sometimes referred to as a cult" comes out, the original Jimbo edit should go back in. Essentially, the consensus has been since February 2011 that some reference to "cult" is a NPOV necessity for the lead. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree some mention could be made in the lead, because there was a consensus at one time, although consensus can change. My point was that Jimbo added the content originally with out consensus, and again recently, without consensus. I don't see the reasoning for, if the consensus version is removed an older version, Jimbo's, automatically goes back in.

There are other editors on this article, if they choose not to edit, whoever is around is who deals with the article. Unless sanctioned no one is excluded. The idea that editors snuck in or snuck out content really makes no sense to me. There are many editors who could have at any time come in and joined discussion; they chose not to. And a talk page on a contentious article is not hidden.

There are lots of good reasons to not use the word cult per scholars on the subject. It carries automatically a pejorative tone, and has become a cliché driven word. It means varying things sometimes dependent on the country that uses it. Newer NRMs could have been be called cults or even NRMs in their early days, but as time goes on those same organizations may enter the mainstream, become commonplace, better understood, and we forget they were at one time viewed with suspicion. Some of America's mainstream religions were once considered NRMs for example. In general, the word, cult conveys very little information, but its use leaves a bad smell in the air, which is often what is intended with its use. I'd add that an overview of the sources on Prem Rawat may indicate the word cult is no longer used to reference the organization. (I haven't checked all of the sources so not sure of that is the case here.) This can be typical of organizations that begin over time, to enter the mainstream. In this case, NPOV would dictate in line citing the dates so readers have a sense of a timeline in terms of the word usage. If the literature indicates the word was used early on but not within recent literature, that is, is not in the mainstream as far as sources go this is a legitimate argument for removing the word from the lead, and at the least for using the word in a historical sense. I'm not advocating that myself given I am one editor, but the argument is legitimate in my mind, so we should expect this point to be made and discussed.

With all that said, I am mystified by the discussion here which focuses on removing the word when I at no time suggested removing it. I merely advised that its use without additional content creates POV. And thanks for being thorough enough to look in the archives. Many editors would not have bothered.(olive (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't really know what's wrong with "cult leader". It's not really pejorative. It just describes a charismatic leader of a religious entity that's too small, or unformed, or centered on a single individual, to be called a religion yet. Prem Rawat is charismatic. His stuff is at least kinds-sorta religious; he's not really an academic philosopher or purely secular self-help coach or what have you. But there's not really a religion called "Prem Rawatism" either, with a liturgy and holy books and all that. Maybe someday there will be, and after all Jesus and Bhudda and so forth were cult leaders at start. When and if there is a proper religion called Prem Rawatism or whatever, he will presumably be described as the leader of a religion. For now, a lot of the activity around him is centered on him personally and his charismatic personality, which is why he's sometimes called a cult leader by reasonable people, which we then report. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We can add content per sources especially scholarly ones in the field of New Religious Movements of which per those scholars, this is one. Not too difficult.(olive (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

Addition:

I've added description of the org from the DLM article, moved things around for flow and added a summary of Cagan's description of Rawat. Let me know what you all think.(olive (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

putting what is relevant to the end of the lead , adding a huge block of positive content in the beginning, reminds of the beginning of the last changes which ended in a whitewash by followers, a truly apologetic behaviour Surdas (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But more to the point that last para, which I'm more or less happy with, probably is the best description of why he's notable. I've therefore moved it to the opening para. I think the tag at the end ("as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace") sounds a little peacocky and not relevant. I've therefore taken it out in a separate edit. DeCausa (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

please sign

You've agreed with something that didn't happen. What block of positive content was added? Per the Prem Rawat arbitration:

• The neutral point of view's requirement that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.

[11]

and

Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious"[12]

I only revert once. I'm happy to take this to the BLP NB to have outside eyes check on this issue.(olive (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

• • I've opened a thread on the BLP Notice Board here:[13].(olive (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't understand your post? Is it in relation to my moving your new paragraph to the top of the lead or my deletion of "as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace". Also, what does "you've agreed with something that didn't happen" mean? DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now I've seen your BLP posting, I understand and see you've jumped to some conclusions wrongly. I repeat below my response on the BLP Board. You should take a closer look at my edit summary. I also note that the response you got on the BLP noticeboard is that your addition is sourced to a work most likely paid for by Rawat. You're not running a credible argument frankly. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase you are concerned about because it was simply a random bit of praise that was unconnected with what went before. The relevant paragraph in full is:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]"

Saying (in terms) "he wants world peace" after talking about whether he's a cult leader or whether DLM is a charismatic religious sect, new religious movement etc is just a non-sequitur. You'd have a point if your addition (reliably sourced) was something like "while others see him as a charismatic leader and insightful thinker" or something like that. As it is you've just thrown down a random "nice thing" about him. That's a misunderstanding of balance. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gagan is a RS. Whether Cagan is a RS for comments about Rawat is a debatable point. And I don't misunderstand balance nor have I jumped to any conclusions. What I understand is contentious articles and how they are edited. I added the least controversial content I could find as a compromise which you then described as "peacock".

The content on cult leader and the Cagan content is introduced in the body of the article, and the lead summarizes that. Further, the content/ paragraph I added for context includes cult, so the other option we have is to remove the now redundant cult leader content Jimbo added rather than add then delete anything that adds balance. I'm sorry about what is going on here.This is a human being we are treating unfairly. I won't be commenting further on the NB. I'll leave that to uninvolved editors. (olive (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

As an aside: Per Cagan's own comments and description of the research process, its unlikely she was paid to write this book since there is no sense that Rawat assisted her to make the process easy as would happen in a paid for biography. But since you seem to now have no objections per the NB to use sources and content which describe him in a positive light as a context for the cult leader content, I'll add something else in a few days. We do need to see if there any more comments on the NB before going ahead.(olive (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

• Anyone who wishes to delve into how reliable sources describe Prem Rawat (which wouldn't be me, by the way) may be interested in this analysis which I found in the archives: Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I delved and it's clear that Rawat and DLM were most frequently described as a NRM, organisation or sect. So saying it is a cult and he's a cult leader according to "anti cult writers and the press is POV pushing. Doesn't anyone have the guts to revert Jimbo Wales. He's wrong he added it without discussion or consensus. Show some integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.207.93 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that saying he is a cult leader is a weight violation and POV violation unless we include the contextual material you talked about that is, that this organization and leader have been described in multiple ways not just one. I may add content; not sure yet.(olive (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

Again the cult thing. Sources: “popular press” reports. I don’t think the press, newspapers, are a truthful source. Take The New York Times, that said there were weapons of mass destructions and supported the Irak war, or its silence on the arbitrary and unlawful behavior of corporations like PayPal, Master Card, etc. in the Wikileaks affair,etc. And this is one of the most prestigious newspapers in the World. Or take the Murdoch newspapers, the mostly yellow British press, etc. Books are a better source than newspapers, depending on who writes them. In any case, it is not right to compare Prem Rawat with generally accepted cult leaders like Jim Jones, or Osho, jailed by the FBI, or Maharishi Mahesh Yogui, who charged over 2,000 dollars for a personalized mantra (which respected yoguis like Yogananda say are useless to reach Samadhi, despite the placebo effect some followers may claim). The term cult is very vague, and what most understand is a dangerous sect which limits the freedom of followers to move, imposes a lifestyle, restricts communication with families, etc. If that is what some editors, mostly anti-Prem crusaders, want to make readers believe Prem is, ok, but I do not think administrators or supervisors should accept it. I read readers´ comments of newspaper El País, Spain, (considered one of the best 10 in the world), saying all the time that the Catholic Church is a dangerous sect and a cult, considering its history. And all churches have been sects before they were religions. What makes the difference between church and sect for most people is size. No matter what people with animosity towards Prem have said in the press, a movement which does not impose any dogmas, nor lifestyle, nor restrictions on followers, and where everything is voluntary, cannot be considered a cult except with a STRONG BIAS and defamatory purposes. I am willing to accept the term "cult leader" if any editor can name JUST ONE other cult leader besides Prem Rawat who has been given the keys of as many cities, invited to give speeches by a similar number of universities and institutions in the wholel world, like the European Parliament, etc. or has received similar international awards.--PremieLover (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I formally and kindly request that any editor, administrator or supervisor removes the sentence with the "cult leader" mention, or substitutes it for something similar to "Although Prem Rawat was considered a cult leader by some in the early times, this term is hardly applicable since this movement imposes no dogmas, nor lifestyle, nor any restrictions on members and everything is voluntary". I think this "cult leader" term has been way too long in the article, mainly due to anti-Prem crusaders like WillBeback, which, by the way, I do not understand why it took so many years to see that he was an anti-Prem crusader who did not help at all to improve the article but only made everyone lose time, until he was finally and rightly banned. --PremieLover (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have an idiosyncratic opinion of what a "cult leader" is not: can you provide a citation for exclusion as a cult leader because of the receipt of the keys of a city? DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for inclusion as a cult leader because of the receipt of the keys of a city? --PremieLover (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, why would I need to? I haven't asserted that someone is a cult leader because they received the keys of a city. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Sentence removed

I've removed this sentence - "As his following increased in the 80s and 90s, Rawat toured almost constantly." - as there are no reliable sources that support these claims, and in fact lots of anecdotal evidence, including my own experience, that suggests his following decreased during that period. Also, although his organisation reports that he tours regularly, those sources also show gaps of several months each year when he doesn't tour at all, so the word 'constantly is inappropriate. John Brauns (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll check for sources for this content in the article body. I've reverted myself pending this check.(olive (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

"Constantly" is not the same as "almost constantly". Prem Rawat has made several international tours every year since he started travelling. Is this almost connstantly, constantly, often, very often...? He has a family, so obviously he cannot be travelling "constantly" without stopping a single month. Why is this so important? I really cannot understand the intention of this removal. --PremieLover (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this. I'll take a look.(olive (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

Constantly is probably not a great word to describe Rawat's activities at this time since it is probably too general in meaning. However, in the article body the word extensively is used and that seems fine. I'm going to return content to the lead using extensively since this information seems to have been stable for awhile, rather than support removal of the content completely. I'm certainly open to discussion on this move.(olive (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

The other issue, I believe, is that there's no source to indicate that Rawat's following increased during the time period indicated. What source in the article supports either of the claims in the sentence? I cannot find any. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Olive, I am happy for the article to say that he toured, and will accept the word 'extensively, but I am at a loss as to why you have reinserted the unsupported claim that his following increased. Could you please remove this. Thanks, John Brauns (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My intent was to deal with the contested term, consistently. I added the word from the sourced content in the body and adjusted it slightly so it didn't repeat the content in the article body. From the graph presented on one of the sources it looks as if there was some increase in membership in the early 80's, but I don't see anything else in these sources being used to ref this content. Personal experience isn't a source, but I also think that until there is more investigation on this, the content could be removed per unsourced content in a BLP, and I agree to that. What I'd like to do is look a bit more into the sources and see what's available in regards to this content. (olive (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. A bit of background for you, which of course I understand cannot be a source for the article. Rawat's organisations have no official membership, and they have never published numbers learning the meditation techniques, which would be meaningless anyway as they wouldn't include the numbers leaving. The only visible indication of following is attendance at his speaking engagements, which also is not usually published but at least can be seen by those attending (and by venue capacity). This is an important indication as Rawat himself says his followers should try to see him when possible. This attendance has declined sine the peak of 20,000 at an international event in 1979. According to the organisation's own figures, 5000 attended his 50th birthday event in 2007, to which everyone internationally was invited.John Brauns (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the statement that he travels constantly, almost constanly, often or whatever, because that is the truth. Last year I personally saw Prem Rawat 4 times in Spain, to give you an example. As to the number of followers I don't care if you say it is growing, diminishing, staying stable, or that we have completely dissappeared. Whatever makes you happy is ok with me.--PremieLover (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Its about sources, not personal experience or truth. And they don't necessarily match up very well. (olive (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

Maharaji

The name is used in some sources so attributing the name to followers alone is not accurate. If this is wording you want, no problem for me, but one wonders why this point is being pushed into the first line. (olive (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC))

Use only positive info about the Person on His Facebook Page

Please delete statement the Divine Light Mission was sometimes called a cult. That may be Historically a true statement but should not be included on Prem's Facebook Page. Just Positive statements Included Please. 71.63.232.167 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Christina

Not done: This is not a Facebook page. Please read WP:BLP to better understand how we handle biographies here. (Here is Wikipedia). Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

I see there is no "criticism" section, disturbing for so controversial a figure (note the blocking and locking of this article). The separate article on criticism was merged with the pre-existing article as that section, which was then removed. This strikes me as very fishy. I previously held up this article as a good example of balance (as compared to that on Ekhart Tolle) - it now seems to me like a hagiography, including references to sources that are not perhaps as "independent" of the Prem Rawat organisations as they appear. I suggest the section be reinstated, as it was at the point of merger, locked for a while to allow discussion, and then added to if necessary from credible sources.

This does not seem to me to reflect Wikipedia's policy elsewhere on biographies of living persons. 

I have read reports of "infiltration" of wikipedia by a fanatical follower or followers of the subject of this biography, i hope that they have no hand in policy regarding this or similar issues. it certainly looks to me that this article has been distorted - possibly by "gaming" the wikipedia system. If this comment is summarily removed, my suspicions will expand geometrically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve M Kane (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New external link

I suggest exchanging the current external link to maharaji.net for a link to Rawat's new personal website www.premrawat.com, as that is a more relevant primary source and a lot more informative than the current one. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I support Rainer's proposal. maharaji.net is very old, might disappear any day, and is not so informative.After I wrote this I went to maharaji.net and it changes automatically to premrawat.com --PremieLover (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The link maharaji.net now links to the new site, www.premrawat.com, so I'd agree should use the newer site and url.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

O.k., done.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Delhi Youth Peace Fest 2.2.14

Rawat held a gathering in Delhi recently, which was covered by media like The Times of India. It does not seem to be a primary press-release. I suggest adding the info to the article. Objections or opinions? Proposals? http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-02-06/delhi/47088361_1_peace-fest-world-peace-peace-events --Rainer P. (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

well. i read the article and i don't see anything new in the message. If we keep adding press articles here just for the record this will be a prem rawat news release archive Surdas (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Surdas, of course it is not new, it's still Prem Rawat. The Times of India found that event notable enough to devote a large amount of space to it, and helped sponsor the event. It isn't automatically a "press release", just because it transports a supportive attitude. Compare this to the amount of attention and space the WP-article gives to the Millennium event more than 40 years ago, where attendance was only one tenth of this, and Rawat was still a minor.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If The Times of India co-sponsored the event, then it's a press release. We don't place press releases in this article. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. Perhaps somebody neutral can explain to us the difference between a press-release and an article.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is highly contentious so a collegial tone would be helpful from all here.

Hi Rainer P. Since the Time Foundation organized this event and then wrote about it, while this is not technically a press- release it does still play the part a press release does and that is to describe, support and advertise its own event, and so In this instance I'd have to say that this is probably not a good source. If the event was important enough It might be found in another more reliable source. I might be wrong on this but this would be my call on this situation. Thanks for posting here which shows collaboration rather than inserting the content into the article with out agreement (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

Hi Olive, and thanks for reminding me of good faith! I know I should be grateful for not having to play advocatus diaboli myself, when they pop up so faithfully! Here's another link to a report on public Indian TV, and that is also supported by Times of India, but then it says so explicitely in the spot, and the video carries its own validity and veracity. The fact that the event was sponsored by the ToI can of course be mentioned in the edit. Otherwise it seems a little hard to explain why WP refrains from mentioning such an obviously large scale event. http://www.tvhub.in/watch/times-now/youth-peace-fest/o9Mju4fOLaM/ --Rainer P. (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Times Now Newschannel, who have provided the TV-report, are related to the Times of India, but not identical. Both are run by the Times Global Broadcasting Company, http://www.timesnow.tv/articleshow/4211428.cms . The Times of India is not the beneficial owner of Times Now, they just use the reporting staff of ToI, among others. Now is the TV-report also a press-release? What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

hmm, I think , even the tv channel is connected to Times of India, that's problematic. Do numbers like over 180.000 in India,have the same meaning as in western countries? I mean in India there are often gatherings of even more than that, that don't even make it into our medias(neithter did that). Did this event promote Rawat in India comparable as the Millenium in the west? It is still a biography and not an accounting of his actions IMO. Surdas (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because both sources are not independent which means they don't have independent oversight, I'd say they aren't RSs. That would be my thought on it. I may not be right of course. You could take it to RS Notice board and see what they have to say. I do agree that this seems to be a big event. I also looked for more sources and didn't find anything reliable. I'm sorry ; this is a dilemma which is why I'd think about a NB.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC))

The Youth Peace Fest, who arranged the event, are obviously not a Rawat-organisation, but an independent political formation. http://www.edu-active.com/conferences/2013/may/17/international-youth-peace-fest.html . 2014 was their 9th annual event, and the first time Prem Rawat was invited to speak. This circumstance may have also lifted it to a higher level of notability, by linking it to Rawat's global mission. http://www.moneylife.in/business-wire-news/youth-peace-fest-2014-aims-to-build-a-culture-of-peace-among-youth/38162.html . Also, I think it displays a bit of ethnocentric bias to value 180.000 Indians (in 2014) lesser than 20.000 Americans (Millennium 1973, which in addition is labeled as a failure in WP). It does not do justice to a global endeavour. Thank you, Olive, for your helpful advice. I would respect a NB decision.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This [14] looks like a RS to me, with the other sources I'd think a simple sentence could be included about the fact that Rawat spoke at the event. Any thoughts by others here? I was about to take this to RS/ NB but on looking at this source it seems fine. Any thoughts here by others who have been concerned about sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

if this is a RS it is OK with me if it is done with a sentence, though i am missing a responsible author named for the article, but that might be a minor issue.Surdas (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Rainer, left alone in front of all the anti-Prem crusaders. What happened to Momento? I support all future proposals by Rainer. That is all I can do, this will last much longer than the "Dallas" TV series. :-) --PremieLover (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@PremieLover: "There is no strength in numbers. Have no such misconception." (Uriah Heep, "Lady in Black")--Rainer P. (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rainer. I will take this source to a NB to make sure that when and if its used in the article for a simple statement it will not be contested.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

Done. Thank you all.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I had intended to take this to a NB before you posted but I don't see a problem and no one else has disagreed with this source. If I'm missing something let me know please.I did remove the number of people present at the fest since that comes out of another source we are not using. Hope that works for everyone. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)) I continue to think that the these are press releases. The event's theme was "7 Billion Reasons for Peace” which is a direct quote from Prem Rawat, made sometime in 2012. It was clearly an event designed for Rawat to be the major speaker, and the verbiage of all the press releases mimics that found on the various websites that directly support Prem Rawat, as well as in previous press releases. I also object to Rainer P. making an article edit when clearly there wasn't concensus made before him doing so. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, as there still seems to be an unsolved conflict, I'll retract the sentence, until the RS/NB gives green light. Without the number, it's not worth much anyway. LittleOlive has offered to contact the board. BTW to me it is of greater importance to have a large media corporation support Rawat than to have a sentence in that weird article. And maybe that in itself is news worth mentioning, similar to the Cagan book, which is not used for contested information, but notable for appearing at all. But let's wait, then.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so Monday I'll take all sources to a NB and get input there. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

Thank you. I don't have an objection to the addition; my only concern is that it comes from a by-the-book reliable source. All the best... Sylviecyn (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be taking the sources to the RS Notice Board to get the input of uninvolved editors as to which of the several sources suggested are considered RS per the community(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

Thanks, you are being very helpful.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Olive, in the moneylife-source [15] it say explicitely in the 3rd line: "More than two lakh youth gathered at the mega event, which translates "more than 200.000", you may have overlooked that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh

Ok I see that... I was scanning for numbers so didn't catch that, I certainly should have. Apologies(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

Surdas. Do you see a problem with the Moneylife source [[16]] for a simple statement on this event. I believe it complies as a RS. My plan had to be to take it to NB but I think we're knowledgable enough here to make that decision ourselves. Anyway let us know, and I'll go from there.(Littleolive oil (talk))

i think it's OK to add it. If it turns out to be constructed, we can delete it later. go ahead Surdas (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Raj Vidya Kender

I cannot find in the article a reference to the Raj Vidya Kender, and I think it should be mentioned, in the "Following"-section; I suggest something like "In India Rawat's students have organised under the denotation "Raj Vidya Kender", sourced with http://www.rajvidyakender.org/. Opinions? Placement?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Joy's clarification request

So, back to this one. I think it is appropriate to delete the sentence in question, as it seems meaningless and ununderstandable beyond repair. It must be the cold ruin of some prolonged conflict, but the way it is, it is worthless and should not be there. The "opulent lifestyle" and the "lack of intellectual content" has already been mentioned a sentence before. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

i guess it was quite a long process to install this sentence as it was common that if there was a critical statement about Rawat, a counter statment or an explanation was installed to relativate it. I mean what would we loose? The information that Rawat had a distrust concerning the press is one example. I think it is necessary to know this fact to understand why there was so few information about him for decades. On the other hand my abilities to recreate this sentence are limited due to my lesser language skills. Any other ideas? Surdas (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

His distrust in the press is mentioned further below in the article body, but I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned in the summary. I agree it is worth mentioning the circumstances that lead to his withdrawal from mass media, but that is not what the sentence says, I think. It would require a whole new sentence in the "Media"-section to state that. I would support such a statement, and also its reflection in the summary, as it would then be a relevant item. But I see no way to morph this out of the sentence as it stands.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)