Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re 1rr violation by Momento. Claiming something is a BLP matter is insufficient, if challenged--you need to demonstrate why and how. How is this double sourced addition of a critical sentence a BLP violation? Please clarify.

Francis says that Schnabel and Kent support the claim that "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse", Scnabel compares Rawat to Osho and says that compared to Osho Rawat is "intellectually quite unremarkable". He doesn't mention Rawat's "public discourse", it is a comparative description. Therefore Francis's interpretation has no source. Kent describes a Rawat talk as "banal". "Banal" doesn't mean "lack of intellectual content". This is a BLP Lawrence, we have to "get it right".Momento (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an extreme of tortured logic in an attempt to stretch to BLP (and claim exemption from 1RR). I would call it wikilawyering. "Francis interpretation has no source" is simply false. "Momento doesn't like one of the sources " is more accurate, but does not justify a BLP deletion. Especially since the argument is specious. Schnabel doesn't have to use the exact same words as the article to be a source. He doesn't mention the phrase "public discourse"? What else would he be talking about? Rawat's private conversations with his wife? Banal <> lack of intellectual content? That's just wrong. Banal = trite or commonplace; intellectual = "possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, esp. to a high degree." Trite or commonplace ideas do not show a high degree of intellect or mental capacity. That's exactly what it means. Msalt (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let me think five minutes. The compromise I suggested is not quite going to work then. Jayen466 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would this be close enough to the sources, Momento?

Rawat's teaching style has been described as intellectually unremarkable^[1] and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect.^[2] He has been criticised for leading an opulent and materialistic lifestyle.^[3][4] Jayen466 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not close to the source. Schnabel doesn't say Rawat's "teaching style has been described as intellectually unremarkable". He says that compared to Osho, Rawat is " intellectually unremarkable". Mind you Rawat is 25 and Osho is 51.Momento (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)^3 Thanks for the effort, Jayen, but it doesn't work for me: Schnabel criticises Rawat, not teachings (from whoever the these teachings originate), and even less teaching style. Schnabel criticises "staging" if you want, but not "teaching style" (note, for Schnabel's "staging" criticism we'd need to elaborate first in Reception section, which I have every intention to do, as proposed on this page above - again, see /scholars#Schnabel 1982, it has some valuable material). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we would have to say "Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable", though to me the context in the source appears to be a comparison of the two as different types of charismatic leaders. Jayen466 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)^2 Would work, of course, but then again only for a single source: I think it is possible to make a phrase that can be referenced by both provided sources. In fact, the sentence you tampered with now too in the article works that way for me.

But I'd agree to "Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable and banal" (with both references) too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No! We would have to say "Schnabel described Rawat as "intellectually unremarkable" compared to "ever changing, intelligent" Osho.Momento (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Rawat, not Bhagwan (

Osho

). We have other sources in the article that make comparisons: generally I support the policy of not commenting on other subjects in the article on Rawat, so consequently, the parties with which Rawat is compared are excised from quoted text in such references, and even less do we mention them in the body of the article.

For clarity, lest someone would be tempted to deform what I actually said:

• sources making comparisons can be used for the Rawat article, and are currently used in this article;
• generally, we take out the parts of the sentences that comment on the other party with which a comparison is made, while this is Rawat's article, and not a board on which to stick interpretations of comparable and uncomparable other subjects. We do so unless the fact that such comparisons are made is "notable" in itself (i.e. enough coverage in reliable sources on the comparison), which would warrant a paragraph or section in both articles of the subjects being compared, and if very notable, both of these paragraphs or sections would link to a separate article on the topic of the comparison (example:
  Comparison of Java and C Sharp). No notability threshold has been reached for such treatments of a comparison imho, this would need more sources, so I'd stick to using such sources with the info on the other party excised. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, "his movement has sometimes been criticized for stressing emotional experience over intellect" (Barrett); that's as close to verbatim as possible then. Jayen466 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And then we would have to add " according to Christian scholars" but "in accord with Sant principles Rawat emphasizes a direct subjective experience over a body of dogma. It can't be done in the lede.Momento (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is an article about the person, not the movements (which have their own articles), so I'd keep that out of the lead section, there is already comparatively too much things like "practioners and movements are said to..." in the article now, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Schnabel particularly Christian? David V. Barrett appears to be summarising criticism generally; he does not appear to have any overriding Christian loyalties, or does he? Jayen466 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re. "Is Schnabel particularly Christian?" - nothing in the indicated resume that would indicate such thing: doctor in sociology, with a post-doctoral also related to sociology: no particular interest in religion or religious background mentioned in the resume. When I found a source, some time ago, that indicated several youngsters of Jewish background had become interested in Rawat, I received a response on this page that there was no relevance to it, it wasn't even to be considered as a fact. I'd suggest a similar approach regarding Schnabel. The only (and also afaik insignificant) "correlation" we have is that both Schnabel and Kent are not only scholars, but also both sociologists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, I told Jossi and Rumiton many times that Schnabel is not a Christian but they simply do not believe me. Andries (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Schnabel is a "Christian". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Andries (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable and banal", is

WP:SYN. Schnabel described him as such. Kent said that one talk he heard was banal in his opinion. The lack of intellectual content in Prem Rawat's talks is well documented and not necessarily negative. People here are trying to push a negative casting on his persona based on a single source in a Phd dissertation, and in the lead? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote -- what does it mean to preface a comment with "(ec)"? I see both Jossi and Francisc doing this but I have no idea what that signifies. Thx. Msalt (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit conflict. Sorry for the lingo. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Glossary if you encounter such abbreviations that seem unclear on first sight. Or, for a sunnier side on this: WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you fine with the wording as it is now in the article, and could you cite another reference that refers to this lack of intellectual content in his talks? Because then we might be home dry here (if I understood Francis correctly that the version as is in the article is fine by him; we would just need a reference to address Momento's concern). Jayen466 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may work. I will look for other sources. Even Prem Rawat himself in his talks says that his teachings have nothing to do with intellect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's like quoting a Jew criticizing a Christian priest for eating pork in the lede of the article about the Christian priest. Rawat teaches people to have a direct experience not a theory. As such he will always be seen as lacking "intellectual content". I'm sure someone will be able to find a quote from a Catholic priest concerned about Rawat not referring to the "intellectual content" that permeates the papal view on virgin birth.Momento (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one come to understand the peace you are speaking of?
Peace is not necessary in the mind; it is necessary in the heart. The mind and intellect cannot capture peace. They have a different function. Peace, joy, and true happiness are not subjects for thought. They can only be felt. There is a feeling behind being alive. There are no explanations for it. It is the feeling that one has to get to—because that is where there is comfort, that is where there is joy, that is where there is satisfaction. It is in that feeling that we need to live our lives. Somehow, we think that we need an explanation of what peace is, but peace cannot be explained; it can only be felt.

— Prem Rawat ^[5]

As you can see, saying "Rawat's public discourses have been described as lacking intellectual content" is misleading, unless you include the fact that Rawat himself does not claim that his discourses have something to do with intellect. We need context, which is missing now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not agree. The context is already there: the emphasis is on Knowledge. Andries (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Jayen to it.Momento (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and on top of that, what he says here is quite articulately put. :-) Jayen466 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not fine with it, for reasons I gave above. Note that Barret (specifically Barret, whose reference text is now included in this footnote: [1]) does not say anything about Rawat, he says: "...in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized..." – inappropriate reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break ("lack of intellectual content")

Don't you think Barrett is conflating the two? The very next sentence after the one you quoted speaks of the teaching: "... the movement was sometimes criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best be described as practical mysticism." Jayen466 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Don't you think Barrett is conflating the two?" - well you can't have it both ways: it's still very unclear to me how much Rawat associates himself with US DLM, later Elan Vital, and how much he dissociates himself from that organisation.

Authors deliberately or undeliberately conflating the two is not very helpful...

One of the very few examples of a source making the distinction between Rawat's approach and that of the practitioners that I could find: "Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age." (Downton - I'm not commenting on whether yes or no Downton puts the borderline in the right place here, I'm merely using this as an example of the type of distinction I'm looking for)

Anyway, unless we can see where the border is, that is: where Rawat's thoughts end, and where the movements and practitioners start to supply their own, we have to apply BLP-inspired caution:

• Sources supplied by these movements and practioners are not to be treated as third-party sources in a
  WP:V
  way, unless it is very clear that they provide an approach independent from Rawat.
• Where authors describe these movements and practitioners, on the other hand, these descriptions can not be taken for granted as being a description of Rawat, unless it is very clear that Rawat identifies with that aspect of the movement (so, you need a source saying the same about Rawat anyway).

"Having it both ways" is when one starts associating and dissociating Rawat with and from his followers based on content: a third party author says something nice about the movements, then interpreting as if something nice is said about Rawat, and conversely when such author says something less nice about the movements, then interpreting as if there's no link between Rawat and the movements. We have to apply the caution as explained above. Whether we, Wikipedians, think Barrett is conflating the two or not is irrelevant while that would be OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with Osho is obviously faulty. And Kent's "banal" opinion needs the context that he "was surprised that his companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received.".Momento (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to taking a phrase from some scholar without providing context and balance. The criticism of "Teaching" should never be in the lede because no space is given to provide the necessary context. And that context would be something to the effect that Rawat's teaching is deliberately anti-intellectual. The techniques of Knowledge are taught so that the individual can have their own personal subjective experience rather than theory and dogma.Momento (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; I have self-reverted now and taken the critique of his teaching out of the lede. Jayen466 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It is simply unfair to drop in one side of the story into the Lede and frustrate any attempt for balance. It is a complex issue that needs to be dealt with properly and that cannot happen in the lede. Thanks.Momento (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For the lead section:

Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable^[6] and his message as banal^[7].

(although I agree with Msalt that "intellectually unremarkable" and "banal message" are in fact tautological, and I see no OR in: "Rawat's message has been described as intellectually unremarkable.^[6][7]", preferring the euphemistic "intellectually unremarkable" over the blunt "banal")

For the Reception section:

Sociologists described Rawat as intellectually quite unremarkable and his message as banal: Schnabel saw Rawat's charismatic leadership as staged to a certain degree,^[6] Kent was surprised that his companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received.^[7]

(so Kent no longer in the Teachings section) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. Using the lede to over represent the opinion of Schnabel or Kent (which is also out of context in which his opinion was made), is inappropriate, to the say the least. I would suggest to restore Janice's compromise version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "compromise version" - I don't understand? Janice is a one-sided editor, clearly in the pro-Rawat camp (I don't think I'm exaggerating here). Janice's edit wasn't discussed here before it was performed, no agreement or compromise was reached. I know of only one editor (pro-Rawat) who really defends it here on this talk page: I didn't even see Janice participate in any discussion of her last edit to the lead section. The edit was wrong on many levels as discussed above. What was your reason please to call this a compromise version? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, some comments on Janice's editing style, still on this page:

• "Janice Rowe's blind revert" (Msalt)
• "Deleting [...] as Janice Rowe has just done, is not a helpful way to edit a contentious article either" (Will)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You call me a "pro-rawat editor", as if that was a terrible thing. You are obviously an "anti-rawat" editor and that isn't terrible either. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, on both accounts:

• I don't consider either being a pro-Rawat or being a Rawat-critical editor as anything terrible, I work with both on the same level.
• I'm not an anti-Rawat editor, and because I am not I take offense.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What does have anything with her version being a good compromise or not? Let me remind you that you recently asked to be judged by your edits, so do the same with others. Janice's version has merit, as expressed by several editors, and should be evaluated on its merit. BTW, you have not replied to my argument about giving Kent's opinion (a passing comment in a preface of a book), and Schanbel's (a Phd dissertation that has hardly been cited by scholars), undue representation in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, again, I don't see any merits in Janices recent edit to the lead section, and I explained why. It is no compromise by far, and you don't even begin to explain why you think it is.

Re. Kent & Schnabel: they undoubtedly gave their opinion on the subject of the article, many others commenting on intellectual content were in fact commenting on other persons (practitioners, organisations, movements, etc) for which Prem Rawat is not the sole representative, even often not the representative at all, so such comments on people or groups that are not identifiable with Rawat himself don't quite belong in the lead of an article on Rawat. Some of it could, as far as I'm concerned, even be removed from the body of the article (as I wrote above). When we write an article about Von Karajan, we don't write in the lead section "his public was sometimes criticised for coughing during the concerts" or "the orchestra he conducted was criticised for (whatever)". Similarly, when we write an article on Rawat, we don't write in the lead section "...the movement was sometime criticized..." (Barret), or something derived from that.

Kent and Schnabel are also both respectable sources: Schnabel had written 75 articles since he had become a sociologist in 1973: the book we're talking about here is his thesis in 1982 (when he became a doctor in medicine). It was published as a book, by an author who was already a scholar for a decade. At least in intent it was written to advise the government of the Netherlands on their policies w.r.t. NRMs (whether that materialised I don't know) [2]. Kent's book has all characteristics of a reliable source: he studied and wrote about Rawat's movements in the book, so he has a broader perspective, but we concentrate on what he said about the person here.

On the other hand I don't think we're giving undue weight to the criticism on Rawat in the lead section: criticism on the topic of Rawat's intellectual content has been published by non-scholars, non-experts, self-publication and/or without making clear whether they actually commented on the subject of this article, or something related to him but not Rawat himself: none of this is usable as a source for Wikipedia in this context, but the criticism exists and is well-documented. So, for the sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria without hesitation (or should I say: despite the nit-picking on irrelevant characteristics), they should be given a fair representation, and that is imho in the lead section too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, is completely wrong reg. Paul Schnabel's influential disstertation. Schnabel is one of the Netherlands' most influential sociologists. Andries (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

about Schnabel's dissertationAndries (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ICSA? Really? give us a break. RE:Schabel: I only find five citations for Schnabel's dissertation Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid (which was written in Dutch and never translated, to English, wonder why?), and despite the long straw man argument by Francis (I never argued that Schnabel cannot be used in the article), the fact is that the lead should be a good summary of the article, and not a place to assert or over-represent the opinions of specific people. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. (

WP:LEAD). Kent makes a passing comment on the preface of a book, and mis quoting him without the surrounding text, is well, what's the word? Nitpicking? I would argue that the lead needs an expansion of the teachings aspects that are widely described in multiple sources, indicating wide consensus of sources, rather than highlight Schnabel, Kent, or even Hunt or Downton for that matter. I think we have discussed this already quite enough. If there is no intention for accepting a compromise, such as the one made by Janice, I would argue that we need a new proposal (or eventually take this to mediation.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, again you assert Janice's text as a compromise, without even an attempt at reasoning why it would be. There is no reasoning, you've made that much clear, just an attempt at hammering "compromise" "compromise" "compromise"... And you're the only one: Janice has a pro-Rawat slant, and that was clear from her edits, including the one you refer to here. If you can't explain why it would be a compromise, what middle position it expresses or whatever that would make others help to see that your compromise qualification is more than a PR-stunt, why would we then start thinking about it as if it were a compromise. It is not. I think I showed that a good compromise is always acceptable to me, and I have negotiated many here, and in the archives before I helped implementing them.

I do think Lawrence's last version of the intro is a more than acceptable compromise: he was an uninvolved party that intervened. I have kept other criticisms (inserted or proposed by Rawat critics) out of the intro, so I really think I'm going for the middle ground here, a version that should be acceptable by critics as not glossing over criticism, and by pro-Rawat editors likewise as no more criticism than reflecting its importance [...] according to reliable, published sources, that is: only two points of the miriad of criticisms documented on the subject.

So again, please explain why you would think Janice's version a compromise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is why. Lawerence's edit Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse. Janice's edit Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect.. My argument is that in the former, we are framing this as "criticism", when the lack of intellectual content is not necessarily a negative, but the contrary. In the latter, we make the necessary counterpoint, of the undisputed emphasis of direct experience vs. intellect (which by the way, it could be argued is pervasive in Eastern teachings.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the anti-cult website ICSA is written by a Dutch anti-anti-cult writer, Richard Singelenberg, who wrote that Schnabel's dissertation was influential. So it will be clear that I do not understand why I should give you a break regarding the ICSA. Andries (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose to take the ICSA discussion elsewhere, it has no bearing on the Prem Rawat article as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(sorry if this seems contradictory with what I wrote just above) The ICSA discussion is interesting nonetheless. It's about difference in approach between Belgium and the Netherlands (in Singelenberg's approach framed in the more recent discussions within the European Union). (sidenote and FYI, I'm the Belgian here, Andries from the Netherlands). I started thinking about it and found this (via Wikipedia's Cults and governments article): The Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults‘ report to the Belgian Parliament from 1997 in its 6th chapter, p. 106, there is:

6. L’approche des Pays-Bas Le 26 juin 1980, la commission de la Santé publique de la Deuxième Chambre a décidé de créer une sous-commission «sectes» chargée d’étudier les activités des organisations sectaires aux Pays-Bas et ses conséquences pour les individus visés par de telles pratiques, d’une part, et d’évaluer l’assistance sociale apportée sur le plan de la santé mentale de la population, d’autre part. Cette enquête, qui a duré quatre ans, s’est conclue par le dépôt, le 17 mai 1984, d’un rapport intitulé : « Overheid en nieuwe religieuze bewegingen » (Doc. n° 16635, n° 4, session 1983-1984). (followed by a description of the content of the report)

6. De Nederlandse benadering Op 26 juni 1980 heeft de commissie voor de Volksgezondheid van de Tweede Kamer besloten een subcommissie « sekten » in te stellen, belast met het onderzoek naar de activiteiten van de sektarische organisaties in Nederland en de gevolgen daarvan voor de individuen op wie soortgelijke praktijken zijn gericht enerzijds en met de evaluatie van de maatschappelijke hulpverlening die aan de bevolking wordt verstrekt inzake geestelijke gezondheid anderzijds. Dat onderzoek heeft vier jaar in beslag genomen en werd afgerond met de indiening, op 17 mei 1984, van een verslag met als opschrift « Overheid en nieuwe religieuze bewegingen » (Stuk nr 16635, nr 4, zitting 1983-1984). (followed by a description of the content of the report)

The summary of that report can be read in the PDF linked above (that is if your French or Dutch is not too rusty). What struck me is that the conclusions of the Dutch governemental report (as described in the Belgian governemental report) are almost word for word taken from Schnabel's "Stellingen" [3] as published in the 1982 version of his book. It's almost unthinkable the Dutch parliamentary commission would not have used Schnabel's book. I'd be very happy if anyone could find more info on this. (but as I said we need not necessarily discuss this on this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociologists described Rawat as intellectually quite unremarkable and his message as banal, is a violation of WP:SYN and an over generalization. (a) It reads as if all sociologists said that, when in fact was only Schnabel; (b) Kent did not describe the "message" as banal, but he referred to a single address that he heard. This is becoming tedious and silly, and close to

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Less of a charismatic leader" is wrong. Schnabel described both Maharaji and Rajneesh/Bhagwan as pure examples of charismatic leaders. Andries (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the lede, it says "Rawat continues to tour extensively". The source given for this is Cagan's book. However, according to the Prem Rawat Foundation owned website, contact-info.org, Rawat only attended 20 events in 2007, and has attended none so far this year with only one announced for April. I propose that the word 'extensively' is replaced with 'regularly', and that the source is changed to http://www.contact-info.org/previous_events.cfm. --John Brauns (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

These are not all the events he attended. Let me find links to other sources for these other events. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other appearances in 2007: Parliament House (Sept 2007)[4], Trieste (Nov 2007) [5], London (June 2007) [6] , Italian Senate (Rome, April 2007) [7], Argentina Senate (Buenos Aires, Feb 2007) [8]. By my count in the last two years in average, he appeared and spoke at least once every other week (approx 56 appearances in 24 months). Having said that, I have no problems in using "Rawat continues to tour regularly", as "extensively" is a value judgment (some may see that as extensive, some not.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. I'll put it in if not already done. It does sound like he has slowed down a bit in the last couple of years. It's very encouraging to see such a cordial and cooperative improvement worked out by John Brauns and Jossi!! Msalt (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi and myself agree about many things regarding this article! --John Brauns (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I came across this article via the Random Article feature and checked the claim that virtually all of the criticism of Rawat comes from one source. This was easily checked via Google. There is considerable criticism of Rawat. Whether it's true or fair is another matter entirely, but to say it does not exist would be flat-out inaccurate. As well, there is considerable material online accusing him of being a typical cult leader. Again, he may or may not be, and I neither know nor care, but it should be mentioned and I have done so in my edit. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a Biography of a Living Person and you must provide reliable sources for any material used. Your edit is unsourced and doesn't belong in the Lede in any case, so it's coming out.Momento (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, true, there are many sources that describe the Divine Light Mission as a cult, but I never insisted on mentioning the word here because the word has many meanings and hence is not very informative. In addition, it take quite a lot of effort to retain well-sourced material here, because of the presence of Momento who tend to remove everything that they do not like, claiming that they follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this respect. Andries (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read the edit carefully. The mention of "cult" is not in the "lede". The other paragraph that I removed is nowehere near the opening paragraph. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "cult" is much too polemic to be used and there would never be concensus among editors to include it. However, I see nothing wrong with using "new religious movement," because Rawat is the leader of the new religious movement DLM/EV, according to the majority of scholars of new religious movements that have written about him. Just because Rawat's name is no longer legally attached to the his supporting organizations doesn't mean he doesn't lead the organization symbolically and spiritually, and were it not for Prem Rawat's 40 year career, which lends him the notability to even warrant an article on Wikipedia and so many related ones, such organizations would not even exist. It's a glaring omission in the lead to not state this. I think that's why the first paragraph in the lead has always been so problematic here over the years and remains a tortured text that sidesteps this fact. Rawat isn't just some private individual who happens to be a "speaker about inner peace" and a "teacher of four meditation techniques." Moreover, DLM/Elan Vital are listed separately in List of new religious movements so how is it that Rawat's role as it's leader is omitted in this article? During the 70s, Guru Maharaj Ji was listed as DLM's "Chief Minister." Therefore, it makes no logical sense to distance him from the organizations in the lead. Rawat doesn't work in a vacuum, which is what this article implies. The lead should read "Prem Rawat is the leader of the new religious movement Elan Vital, formerly known as Divine Light Mission..." Btw, I don't see this as a critical statement, but rather as a factual statement. See how this is handled in Sun Myung Moon. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, you appear to have reverted twice in a few minutes. Please self revert.Momento (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is *really* difficult to make revisions with the long footnotes. The markup is atrocious. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan to remove this statement for several reasons:

1) Violates

Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that was added by User:Andries, and also re-added to the Teachings article by him diff. See recent discussion here: Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#To which he alone holds the keys?, so you may want to discuss that with Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 1 untrue it is there

ad 2. all taught by direct representatives of Maharaji, so true

ad 3. Sourced at the moment Prive Maeve only, but Melton says more or less the same, so not poorly sources at all

ad 4. disagree. You can interpret this positively as well as negatively.

Andries (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 3: it would be helpful if you could indicate which Melton (book, page number and/or quote...), so that this source can be added too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 3. "At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj.." from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1986; Andries (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Andries -- to address your 4 responses to my points--

1) It's only on the Teachings page because YOU added it two days ago!! I guess, technically that satisfies

WP:Summary

but all of these same problems with the statement apply there as well. We should remove the statement there as well.

2) Direct representatives of Maharaji? No. I think we all agree that his brother SatPal is NOT a direct representative of Prem Rawat; they split in an acrimonious lawsuit in 1975 and run competing organizations. I also noted that a thousand mahatmas no longer under Prem Rawat are in India, knowing these techniques to teach, ditto disciples of Sapuranand, (sp?) etc. None are direct representatives of Prem Rawat.

3) Maeve Price is quoting devotees' beliefs, not saying it's true. Melton in fact proves my point; I'm surprised you cite him. In the 1992 edition of that same encyclopedia, the full quote is this: "At initiation, an instructor (formerly called a mahatma), the personal representative of Maharaji Ji, introduces new members to four yogic techniques, all of which are quite common within Sant Mat circles, though equally unknown to the average person, even to the average Indian." In fact Melton himself goes on to describe the four techniques in detail! It does not build confidence in your position that you quoted Melton in such an abbreviated, unrepresentative manner even after a polite request for details on that source.

4) I don't follow you. You think promotion and salesmanship for Rawat is positive? Not on Wikipedia it isn't. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Msalt (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 2. irrelevant, no longer connected to Rawat. What is important Rawat's claim that either he or his direct representative are necessary for success in meditation

ad 3. No, I do not think so, if you read it well

ad 4. Stating this is not salesmanship, but only highlighting a remarkable and I believe essential trait of Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital~.

Andries (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 4. Suppose that Microsoft claimed that there were no other parties for Operating systems, not just claiming that they supply the best operating systems. Even though e.g. Linux is available. That would be strange and remarkable and iif mentioned in reputable sources should be mentioned in the article Microsoft. It does not have to be interpreted as mere salesmanship. It can also be interpreted as something negative, depending on your outlook. Andries (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As I discussed with Andries on my talk page, I believe he is making a very different point that what appears in the article(s), at least to my eyes, and I am hard pressed to see how the nuance of his point can be captured without becoming advocacy either for or against Rawat. My opinion is that it is better left alone. If anything, we should add a comment in the article noting that Rawat is teaching Knowledge, which is also taught by many Indian teachers (as Melton says). Msalt (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "noting that Rawat is teaching Knowledge, which is also taught by many Indian teachers (as Melton says)" is a not quite right. Many gurus do teach knowledge but Rawat is the one who is teaching "Knowledge".Momento (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

May be I am making a very somewhat different point on your talk page as here. But if the reputable sources come somewhat near to my observations and opinions then I propose using the statements in the sources and not omitting them, only because the nuance of what I say cannot be grasped by merely relying on the sources. Andries (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And what if the reputable sources don't come "somewhat near to your observations and opinions", Andries? Do you then propose not using "the statements in the sources"?Momento (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How often have you see me arguing for removing statement that are sourced to reputable sources that I do not like or agree with? Very rarely or never. The same cannot be said about you. Andries (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Andries, I was discussing your edit proposal, not you.Momento (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lede refers to the criticism of Rawat's extravangant lifestyle, somehow the section of the article this is summarizing seems to have been edited out, we need to re-include that somehow/somewhere. Secondly, the last sentence of the Reception section doesn't quite make sense, as it says he was no less charismatic, and yet unremarkable, these 2 phrases seem at odds with each other in the same sentence. At the very least, it's unclear whether that's a criticism, or a praise, or both. Thirdly (and yes, I could have broken this up into 3 sections!) I think the footnote on the Time article is incorrect, according to my sources, the article in Time, entitled "Junior Guru" was from Nov. 27, not Nov.2, 1972. Comments? Maelefique (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the section titled "Leaving India" presents a highly imbalanced view of the "Millenium '73" festival, minimizing the failure of the occasion drastically. I am adding the following text paraphrased from the Foss & Larkin article, which has already been accepted here as a reliable source. "Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people (as well as extra-terrestrials) would attend, actual attendance was no more than 35,000, incurring a debt of over $1 million." Msalt (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"extra-terrestials"? lol! I think that there are many other sources that address the "Millenium" attendance, and the losses incurred. We ought to present all these competing viewpoints, not only Foss.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is no secret that the Mission has overspent in its brief history and has run up some monumental debts. The guru's millennium celebration at the Houston Astrodome in 1972 left the group sadly in arrears in making payments on debts it incurred at that time. Anctil says at one time the Mission owed more than $650,000 but had been able by late 1976, to reduce that debt to $80,000. Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke.All Gods Children,

ISBN 0801966205

After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs.J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145

I would suggest you summarize these sources, and remove the comment about "extra-terrestrials"... Foos & Larkins got the numbers wrong as well as that silly factoid.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the book "All God's Children" scholarly? Amazon.com describes it as a "mass market paperback." Melton, while accepted here by consensus, is a tertiary source which is always less favored than a secondary source such as Foss and Larkin. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V policy says - "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources". An exceptional claim is a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" or "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs". If such sources are not available, the material should not be included". You'll need to find some corroborative sources for "extra-terrestrials, $1 million and 35,000 attendees". I have reverted this undiscussed "exceptional claim" until Msalt can come up with some support for it.Momento (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, do you approve of this wiki-lawyering? (and unilateral reversion of a reliably sourced statment?) Msalt (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, you unilaterally inserted it without discussion and WP:VER says it shouldn't be included.Momento (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, all editors involved in this page have added material unilaterally without prior discussion. Are you saying that what you, I, and everyone else has done is no longer acceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a discussion section for this single sentence before I added it to this article, and was working toward a consensus improved version with Jossi when you reverted it on a very thin pretext, Momento. I am going to modify it based on Jossi's suggestions, adding additional references though I don't think "All Gods Children" has been shown to be reliable yet. It does not appear to be a scholarly source. I am sticking to either scholarly sources or top-level mainstream news sources, mostly the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which by the consensus on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard are reliable. Here is my reworded version -- suggestions always welcome (as opposed to wikilawyered reverts). I am leaving the part about extraterrestials off for now, to be discussed below. The first fragment I plan to append to the previous sentence:

"designed to usher in “a thousand years of peace.” Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people would attend the free event, actual attendance was estimated at 25,000 by followers and 10,000 by police. The Mission incurred a debt estimated variously from $600,000 to over $1 million as a result, severely damaging its finances. ^{[8] [9] [10] [11]} Msalt (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of finding the best source, you need " high-quality reliable sources", that corroborate F & L's claim that "Mission officials predicted".Momento (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt: I think you got the quote pretty much right the way you had it. Prem Rawat's prize spokesman, Rennie Davis (of the Chicago Conspiracy Trial), ran around the country during the summer of 1973, repeatedly making the same specific claims, in city after city, that (1) 144,000 people would be at the Astrodome, (2) A huge mothership would descend over the Astrodome and lift the structure, with all inside, off the planet. The further embellishment was sometimes added that, at the same time, a massive earthquake along a newly discovered fault would destroy New York City. This was undoubtedly documented in many well-regarded newspapers, but I don't have time to go to the university to look through microfilms this week. But, yes, someone would have to be present to operate the space craft, so the "extra-terrestrials" claim appears to be valid. Since this particular claim, while totally accurate, reflects badly on the Guru, you can expect the "premie axis" of Momento, Rumiton and Jossi to attempt to whitewash it, which is just what they have been doing here, and to call it "defamatory," or "exceptional," which it clearly is not, since it's the simple, unvarnished truth.

Wowest (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I googled Rennie Davis and 144,000 and got one hit. Wowest talking on the anti-Rawat forum.Momento (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't surprising. I may be the only cult critic here who actually talked to Rennie Davis during 1973, and there was no Internet at that time. Since Prem Rawat is such a relatively minor figure, one would not expect much about him on the Internet from 35 years ago. Wowest (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, though, Momento, I just Googled 144000 Houston "Rennie Davis" and got three hits -- an article by Francine du Plexis Gray from the New York Review of Books dated December 13, 1973 and an article by Ken Kelley from Ramparts, February 1974, both preserved on ex-premie.org at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/nyrb7374.htm and http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/overthehill.htm as well as a quotation from Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=vnAk9WefhfwC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=144000+Houston+%22Rennie+Davis%22&source=web&ots=Od7_VpsdvY&sig=tvG0duO6eUdRsUjDdERE_vydSd8&hl=en#PPA64,M1

Wowest (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Loved the bit about the Venutians.Momento (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say that 100,000 attendees were predicted and that only 20,000 appeared. There's a source referencing the expectation of UFOs arriving, and even one saying the remaing 80,000 seats were purportedly filled with invisible spirits. There are also sources for the debt after the event. This is perhaps the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S., so we should get this right. Let's see what the sources, aside from those already cited, say:

• His followers say they expect anywhere from 20,000 to 135,000 people in Houston for the Thursday through Saturday "millenniiim '73" at which Maharaj Ji promises to offer a practical way to bring peace to the world. Thirty chartered jetliners will lift the Guru's followers in from all over the world for the festival which 400 staff members of the Divine Light Mission have been working on since summer.
  • "Throngs To Seek 'Peace'", AP EXPRESS/NEWS—Sunday, November 4, 1973
• It has budgeted $500,000, and expects to spend twice that, for a three-day climax to the guru's world tour in November, "Millenium 73." The mission has rented the Houston Astrodome for $75,000 and booked 35,000 beds in hotel rooms. To help finance the convocation, disciples have been visiting 400 millionaires. Each receives a lush, vinyl-covered looseleaf notebook as a fund raising proposal.
  • "The guru who minds his mother" Malcome N. Carter, AP THE STARS AND STRIPES, November 4, 1973
• The fact that he has found an audience, albeit a small one--early promises that 100,000 devotees would be on parade in Houston were hasitly decalred inopterative when only 20,000 actually appeared--suggests that the search for peace, both individual and collective, beguin in the 1960s, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
  • "Houston's Version of Peace in Our Time" GREGG KILDAY, Los Angeles Times Nov 25, 1973 pg. S18
• When word was passed that extraterrestrial creatures in U.F.O.'s would be visiting the Astrodome, it was Bal Bhagwan Ji who said, "If you see any, just give them some of our literature." A space was left in the Astrodome parking lot in case any flying saucers wished to land.
  • "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, New York Times, December 9, 1973
• The Devine [sic] Light Mission Inc., church of the Guru Maharaj Ji, has been sued by the Astrohall Stadium Corp, which claims the misions owes it $14,500 in unpaid rent...Joe Anctil, spokesman for the Denver-based mission, said the church has tried to pay $14,500 amount by monthly installments of $3,000.
  • "Guru's church sued for unpaid rent" AP
• In fact, "Millenium '73" turned out to be a bust. Contrary to expectations of some communicants, the Astrodome did not take off into outer space. On a more practical level, the cost of the event was estimated at $1 million, and it attracted an audience of fewer than 20,000.
  • "TV: Meditating on Young Guru and His Followers" John J. O'Connor, New York Times, February 25, 1974
• A Houston photographer and film producer said Wednesday that the Divine Light Mission, headed by the 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, still owes him $22,000 for a film produced last year. A spokesman for the mission disputed the producer's allegation...Producer Don MrClendon said he has received nothing but negative responses to his claims that the mission still owes him money for the film. However, Carole Grcenberg the mission's director of information services, said McCIendon actually owes the mission $3,000 in unreturned overpayments. She called McCiendon's accusations "unjustified" and "completely unwarranted."
  • "$22,000 From Guru Still Sought", AP CORPUS CHRISTI TIMES, Thurs., May 30, 1974
• Beneath the spiritual bliss of the guru Maharaj Ji's Denver-based Divine Light Mission lie more than $300,000 in unpaid bills and a never ending fund drive, according to the guru's former financial analyst...Meanwhile, other mission bills go unpaid. For example, Millenium '73, the mission's huge festival at the Astrodome, was paid for only after mission equipment and files were repossessed....He said donations, averaging $100.000 a month at the height of the guru's 1973 recruitment, now struggle to reach $40,000. The deficit, according to Garson, has resulted in a form of check kiting where checks are written on funds not necessarily available at the time.
  • "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, UPI, March 23, 1975, Lincoln, Neb., Sunday Journal and Star
• DENVER (AP) - His organization claimed 6 million followers when Guru Maharaj Ji was 15...That was four years ago, and times have changed. The faithful now number 1.2 million, according to a spokesman for his Divine Light Mission. Donations have fallen off and the Church is retrenching. Its printing business is gone and some of the property in Denver and other American cities has been sold. The lease has been dropped on the computer that once kept track of the pudgy teen-ager's following. Some of the more extravagant claims about the guru's divinity also have been dropped. Once, Maharaj Ji was known as "Lord of the Universe" and "Perfect Master" to his devotees. Now, Joe Anctil, the 43-year old spokesman for the guru, describes him as "the point of inspiration for all of us." ...As devotees moved out of ashrams, their weekly paychecks, previously turned over to the guru's treasury, were missed. Donations fell from more than 1100,000 a month to 70 per cent of that, although Anctil said 3,000 regular donors remain. The declining income forced a decision to change operations.
  • "Declining donations dim Divine Light Mission" AP Nov. 22, 1976
• In 1973, the mission sponsored a festival designed to attract 100,000 faithful and signal 1,000 years of peace. Only 20,000 showed up and the group felt it was being portrayed poorly in the media.
  • "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979; pg. 3
• The same year, the Guru Maharaj Ji rented the Houston Astrodome for a rally, setting aside parking-lot space for flying saucers. They didn't show. So didn't 80,000 of the up-to-100,000 people the 15-year old Perfect Master had expected.
  • "A LOOK BACK AT THE '70S" HENRY ALLEN, Los Angeles Times Dec 16, 1979; pg. K30

These are just excerpts from a portion of the sources covering "Millenium '73". Based on a reasonable evaluation of weight it may deserve a section of its own. The last reference is a testament to the event's overall cultural significance - it was included in a review of the decade of the 1970s. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the extraterrestrials claim should be taken with a pinch of salt. We are talking the early seventies here, a time when I believe flowery language, interspersed with "man ...", was pretty common, including among the demographic herein concerned, I suspect. At any rate, if one of Rawat's family suggested that "If you see any [extraterrestrials], just give them some of our literature" and people left a space in the parking lot (!) for

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure than with the Book of Revelation. We shouldn't make it sound like the latter. Jayen466

12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right. "Leaving space for the flying saucers" may have been a euphemism for a large open area in the parking lot caused by too-few attendees. Nonetheless, it seems to have been a meme for the event. Let me see if I can find any other sources that mention it.

Also: this splurge of new references is a byproduct of a few hours at the library. As I offered before, if any editor would like copies of the originals I'd be happy to send them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four reliable sources attesting to the extraterrestrials claim. I can understand why the claim would be embarrassing today, but I don't see any evidence to counter this strong evidence that the clain was made. Does anyone have any? Or do you have a different reason than sourcing for not including this? Msalt (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the sources say that Rawat made the claim, or instructed others to make it? Jayen466 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember the hype, though I did not attend the event. I would be very surprised if any reputable source attributes any of it to Prem Rawat. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never, ever, heard Prem Rawat speak of "invisible beings", "extra-terrestrials", or any other such nutty ideas. As for the sources above, taken together with the scholarly sources, simply requires saying that there were expectations of 100,000 people; only 35,000 (or 20,000) attended; that it was covered in the media; that the DLM lost 600,000 USD, and that the organization suffered a setback because of all that (there is a source saying teh Rawat was pleased with the event.) Note, that as it pertains to this biography, that is all is needed. This affected the DLM, refers to the DLM, and refers to his adherents, so expanding on this can be done at Divine Light Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you around the subject in 1973? That appears to be the relevant year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. Until we see clear evidence that Rawat himself discussed extraterrestrials, I think the wise move (given BLP) is to leave it out. Note, I have seen at least one reliable source quote Rawat directly that the Astrodome would be levitated during the event (another popular meme of the time, cf levitating the Pentagon), but again, these kinds of colorful details should require something more emphatic. Personally, I think even if it was undeniable that Rawat threw out such a claim in passing, say we had film of him predicting levitation in a heated moment of rhetoric, it might well be still inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. On the other hand, if he had made a big point of it, then it would certainly belong. Msalt (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lord of the Universe" -- I am removing the claim that this documentary is satirical -- the only source given (IMDB) says nothing of the sort, so it clearly constitutes OR. I am also adding an article about the documentary from the LA Times, which notes the evenhandedness of the film. It's a more reliable source than a website like IMDB. Msalt (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the movie site listed as ref 29 has it listed in the genre of comedy/parody, satire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an obvious satire. 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have very high standards for sources in this article. To be consistent, I will remove the "All Movie Guide Website" since it is unsigned, lists no sources, and shares many of the other flaws that external websites have been criticised for here. We have no way to know that anyone connected with the website has even watched the movie. It is far less reliable than a contemporary review in the Los Angeles Times. I will look for additional quality sources as well.

This documentary actually has a sigificant place in the history of film, in that it was one of the first to use the (then-new) portability and inexpensiveness of video to photograph in ways that would be impractical on film, yet was produced with (then-unheard of) high production value for video. It is firmly in the cinema verite movement; any humor (or pathos) in the film would by design come from the subject, not the filmmakers. The LA Times compliments the film for its even-handedness. Msalt (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The cover of the LOTU claims that Rawat said that Asrtrodome was going to levitate but there is no evidence of him saying anything about it in the video other than some person saying "I would like to bet anyone who wishes to make some 'green energy' that by November 15, the Houston Astrodome will physically separate from the planet which we call Earth and will fly". In other words, a beat up. As for the idea that Millennium was "perhaps the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S.", not by a long shot. But Millennium was undoubtedly the "most important single event of Rawat's mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji's live's in the U.S". BBJ is widely credited with organizing Millennium and trying to duplicate the million person march to Delhi Gate. In early '74 Rawat asked them to leave his house and they went back to India, never to be reconciled again. In April 74 Rawat became an emancipated minor and was about to have legal and financial independence.Momento (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Millenium '73 generated enormous publicity for the subject. If it isn't "the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S." then what is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, now. I have no idea why Momento brought up that phrase -- it's not in the Rawat article. There are many reliable sources for the prediction that Millenium '73 would be the most important event in all of human history, not just Rawat's life. I don't recall off the top of my head though whether that was attributed to Rawat, Rennie Davis (who seemed to be handling most publicity for Rawawt at that time) or to an unnamed spokesperson for the DLM. I know that none of the sources attributed it to Bal Bhagwan Ji; I would have remembered that. But in any case, we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's discuss it only if and when someone wants to add it to the article. Msalt (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rawat actually said that the anniversary of his guru's birth was the most significant event in human history, Millennium was just a celebration of his guru's birthday.Momento (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Momento was not able to justify this statement here, and edited it into the article anyway without support, I am removing it from the article. In his edit he adds Melton as a cite. The problems with that are 1) Melton never says it was "just" a celebration of Rawat's father's birthday 2) Melton is a lesser quality, tertiary source -- none of the many other, higher quality sources (so many that Jossi complained) agree 3) it fails common sense. Shri Hans has a birthday every year, but Millenium '73 was a singular event 4) we have another source saying that the occasion was Rawat's 16th birthday, the day after Millenium '73. but there is no solid source for any of these. 5) it's not relevant to the article or to the significance of Millenium '73. Momento himself has already complained of too much detail abou the event, and this is the weakest link. Msalt (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a self-published source (which could be used in the context of this article): can anyone still get hold of "A Festival for the Whole World" from the Special Millenium '73 Edition of the Divine Times, page 2? From a copy of its (probable) content (A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI - Bonn, Germany - September 31, 1973): "As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is it relevant whether the event was related to Shri Hans Ji's birthday or not? The Mission did not promote it as such - the 1,000 years of peace and a plan for peace were the reasons given by DLM spokespeople -- it was not mentioned in any of the accounts of the events themselves, and none of the major effects of the event in terms of publicity, finances, etc. are related to Shri Hans' birthday. As your source notes, there were 5 birthday celebrations before Millenium '73, none of which have been found notable, and presumably there have been 35 since, again with no significance. Msalt (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is inferred from sources (not the other way around) of course.

Anyway, the 1970 "Peace Bomb", which eventually got into the Guinness Book of Records, was also one of these commemorations of Rawat's father [9] (yes, it's all in a footnote currently in the article).

I'm not saying any of this is notable per se, only: if the appropriate sources are presented, there's no impediment to include such info in the Prem Rawat article as far as I'm concerned: at least it gives a view of what Rawat's approach was to the event. If Rawat commented on the anticipation of extraterrestials, and it is recorded in something we consider a reliable source, of course we'd include it too: this is Rawat's bio after all: insight in how this person thinks (or: thought at the time) is generally welcomed as article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if Rawat neither commented on the stage setting at the event, neither on anticipation of extraterrestials, but on the link with the previous commemorations of Hans Ji Maharaj, then the third of these information bits seems the most essential for the Prem Rawat article to me. (all assuming this is what is actually reflected in the reliable sources which I'm not sure about yet) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence that he did yet, and not that important anyway. Many notable figures don't comment on the things that make them notable, or wish the press and public would discuss an aspect of their life more to their liking. And it doesn't matter if Rawat commented on his staging; he was the one being staged! It was how he was presented, at the moment in his life when the eyes of the world were most upon him, because he and his organization called on everyone to look at him. Clearly lots of thought was given to how he was presented. Msalt (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that this is an article on Prem Rawat in the first place, if he describes the annual commemoration of his father as "the most Holy and significant event in human history", then this is something noteworthy for Prem Rawat, it gives an insight in his stated priorities at the time (again, if the quoted source appears to be authentic). (Side-note:) As this is about Rawat's stated priorities (which is primary source material) we'd always record it in Wikipedia without further interpretation (unless reliable secondary sources would provide such interpretation), per

WP:PSTS. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle I don't see a problem with giving both sides -- the way the press saw it, and the way he saw it, based on primary sources. Jayen466 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, of course (might have given the wrong impression). The only point I tried to make was that, for instance, the Prem Rawat article would quite naturally try to give insight in Prem Rawat, and (for instance) the

Lord of the Universe article insight in what the makers of that film tried to do. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that was understood; after all, you brought the primary source. Jayen466 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand why my sourced reference to the fact that Millennium 73 was a traditional celebration of Rawat's guru was reverted. It is far more important than a "56 piece rock band". It again demonstrates the problem with going "populist". If a dozen newspapers don't mention it, we ignore a scholar that does.Melton is clear "After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity". I want to put it back in.Momento (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your single, tertiary source does not deserve equal weight with to a dozen better sources that don't consider that fact significant, however important it may be to you as a devotee. Read your own quote from Melton again -- can you honestly tell me that the most important detail in that quote is the birthday? Vs. 1,000 years of peace and prosperity and major setback? Even Melton mentions it only in passing.

We are discussing the turning point of Rawat's entire career. What does the fact that it fell on his father's birthday contribute to our understanding of this event? There were 6 Shri Hans birthdays before, and 35 since. Both logic and our sources indicate that the birthdayness was not significant. In fact, I am not clear why we talk about his father's birthday two paragraphs earlier in the article, either. Msalt (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there was a pattern, for a while, for major events (like the Peace Bomb and the Astrodome) to be scheduled around the birthday of his father (and guru). Since it is mentioned by a scholar, I don't see any problem with mentioning it here in the article; it reflects the internal logic of the movement and the esteem that his father, as the proximate source of Knowledge, enjoyed. That is of interest, arguably more so than the number of members in the rock group that played. Jayen466 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that Millennium was the "turning point of Rawat's entire career" is 100% OR. Some would argue that far more important was his break from his family and/or later dropping the Indian traditions. Aren't the sources given, primary sources. They are the first hand accounts of reporters?Momento (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. 2 of the 3 sources are scholarly, both by your favorite source Melton in fact. The third is a "Look Back At the 1970s" in the Los Angeles Times, which found it one of the signal events of the entire decade. Msalt (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I hope you will agree that using 26 indents so that the line vanishes altogether and becomes unreadable is Wikipediality gone mad. Here we are back at the margin. Accuse me of disruption if you will. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. There's no need for bitterness. Indenting is not complicated. When you reply to someone, you indent from their comment, so the flow of discussion is clear. When you reframe the discussion or start a new topic, going back to the margin is better than indenting, because again it's clear. On rare occasions like this one, a conversation continues long enough that the indenting gets silly. At that point, people usually make a brief comments such as "(Out-denting)" as good communication in good faith. It's all of form of courtesy and a way of showing that we are paying attention to each other. Msalt (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Jayen and Francis don't have a problem with including the fact that Millennium was also the celebration of his guru's birth day and we have a good source and it is not contentious and no other source disagrees with it. I will wait 24 hours for any new info and put it back in.Momento (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of consensus. But I want to continue the discussion below, reframed in terms of notability. Msalt (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Millenium 73 coincided with Prem Rawat's decision no longer to seek the media's help in his work of promulgating Knowledge. So it was the biggest thing they got to know about. In the 1970s there were 2 events after Millenium, in 78 and 79, held in Florida that were longer (over 10 days I think) and attracted quite a few more people, and were, as intended, unreported on. There have been innumerable small and middle sized events all over the world since then, as well as huge Indian events that have attracted hundreds of thousands. I know and agree that we don't have secondary sources to tell us about them, I am just explaining why that is. FYI. And that is why some find the article's focus on Millenium irritating. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in general I like your approach here. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of coverage of later events - A) Secret or unreported events are inherently non-notable. If things are secret there are no sources accessible to readers for verification. There's just no way we can cover on the many things the subject does that haven't been reported in reliable sources. B) There is a suggestion that the problems with Millenium '73 exacerbated the growing rift between the subject and his family. Certainly many things of note happened in a short period of time. While the subject's emancipation, marriage, home puchase, U.S. citizenship, etc. are all important and covered in the press, the Millenium '73 event was promised, by the subject himself as well as by followers, to have a global and historic impact. Though the subject's marriage may have had a greater effect on his life, the '73 event is still more notable than his marriage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is an excellent point, and is why this business about Shri Hans' birthday -- which is obviously not a huge deal -- is nagging at me.

First, why is it so important to you, Rumiton (and Momento)? I have a sense that there is some great significance to these birthdays, but no one is saying publicly what it is. If father's birthdays hold a crucial importance to Rawat, then maybe we should spell out what that is instead of constantly hinting about it. Secondly, even if it is important to Rawat or his followers, why is it notable to the general public? I can find several sources that Millenium '73 ended on a Saturday, and maybe that's Rawat's day of rest or something, but it needs to matter to the broader public or it doesn't belong in the article. What does the birthday add to our understanding of this event? What makes it notable? Msalt (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever since his guru died Rawat held an event around 8th November to celebrate his guru's birthday. If there hadn't been a tradition for an event in November, Millennium would never have occurred. Leaving out this important info suggests that Millennium was a one off event of unique significance to Rawat, it wasn't. He always had a multi day festival on those dates. The Millennium part of the deal was Rawat's mother and brother's attempt to create a Western version of the Peace Bomb and it failed. It may be necessary to include sources that describe Bal Bhagwan Ji's role in organizing Millennium. Rawat had very little to do with it.Momento (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the "most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S"? You'd have to ask Rawat that but Millennium sure wasn't it. I would say marriage and children, splitting from his mother and eldest brother, learning to fly etc. would all rate higher for him. Millennium was just one of literally hundreds of events he's talked and there hasn't really been a high point because he's been doing it for 40 years.Momento (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we can't ask the subject (that would be OR) we have to rely on our reliable sources to establish

WP:WEIGHT. Based on the amount of coverage received, the festival appears far more important than the other events you mention. While some organization details may belong in DLM, there's plenty of reporting on the subject's appearance at the festival that should be reflected in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have been considered important by the media but not by scholars. That's the problem with giving importance to what the media thinks is important.Momento (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was considered important by the media, it was likely because it had some importance/relevance/interest to people at the time, scholarly or not, and should probably be included, unless of course, it was in the LA Times :) Maelefique (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly considered important by scholars, several of whom mention this event as a major turning point in Rawat's career. Several are cited in the article as it now stands. Msalt (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton, who appears to be the gold standard, includes a substantial metnion in a 343-word biographical sketch:

• Through the mid-1970s the rapidly developing movement ran into trouble, beginning with its inability to fill the Houston Astrodome in a highly publicized event, Millennium 73.
  • "Guru Maharaj Ji." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

A slightly longer, 471-word article has a longer mention:

• The movement's early growth phase began to spiral down in November 1973 with "Millennium 73," a gathering at the Houston Astrodome that failed to attract enough people to pay the Astrodome's rental fee. The fiasco also attracted attacks against Maharaj Ji's followers by the anti-cult movement.
  • "Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

Also mentioned prominently in other scholarly pieces, at least one of which depicts it as a turning point in the history of the movement:

• Most of the devotees with whom we spoke reported a significant drop in the number of people receiving knowledge starting from late 1973. This created a condition of financial strain which became critical when Millennium '73, an all-out extravaganza held in the Houston Astrodome where Guru Maharaj Ji was crowned "Lord of the Universe," proved to be an economic flop. Financial problems forced DLM to close their national headquarters located in a downtown Denver office building which housed their state-of-the-art communication, publication, and media operations and which employed several hundred persons. DLM underwent significant organizational and ideological transformations. It no longer projected itself as a movement that would include all of humanity in its membership.
  • "New Religious Movements Turn to Worldly Success", KIRPAL SINGH KHALSA, JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION,
• The Divine Light Mission achieved prominence in 1973-74, receiving a substantial amount of coverage in the print and electronic media. Its festival in November 1973 — called Millennium-'?3 — was held in the Houston Astrodome and was the youth culture event of the year. It received coverage by local, national and international press and was the subject of a documentary shown on the public television network.
  • "Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation Of Social Causality Among The Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji", Daniel A. Foss, Ralph W. Larkin, Sociological Analysis, 1978, 39, 2:157-164

So it appears that scholars also consider it noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and that can be covered in the Divine Light Mission article with a short summary here. All what can/needs to be reported is repeated on all these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best we can split up information between this article and DLM since in the U.S. the DLM was synonymous with the subject. There are a couple of sources that deal extensively with the subeject at the festival - a NYT article and another I can't recall that reported on his press conference. Details about the financial problems should go to DLM, with just a summary here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this event was highly notable -- scholarly source Foss and Larkin called it "the youth culture event of 1973" -- and sources indicate that this event was the peak of Rawat's fame (to date), at least in the United States. It was pivotal in the history of both Rawat himself and the organization, and so deserves a prominent place in each article. The only question I have is whether there should be an article for the event itself. For now though I think it's best to focus on its description here and in the DLM article. Msalt (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read Sophia Colliers chapter 12 "Millennium Fever]] in her book Soul Rush. She gives an interesting insider's view of the time leading up to the Millennium program. She's already used as a source in this article. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the inserted phrase "for people who want peace", as the edit is POV pushing and constitutes

Please do not remove sourced material without discussion. On March 6th you rewrote the Millennium section and inserted [10] that Millennium '73 was - designed to usher in "a thousand years of peace" - and gave NY Times sources including Eleanor Blau. What Blau actually wrote was that Millennium '73 was said - to herald "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". I included the missing words and you deleted the whole sentence saying that I'm POV pushing. On the contrary I'm completing Blau's comment that you chose to omit. And FYI, the official phrase for Millennium '73 as per "The Lord of the Universe" video title sequence is "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". "The most significant event in human history" was originally used by Rawat to describe his guru's birthday which he celebrated every since 1967 on the 8th of November. They are separate things that happened on the same day; one describes Millennium '73, the other describes the festival that has happened every year since Rawat's father died. I have reverted.Momento (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There were bumper stickers with this wording "peace for those who want it", they are mentioned in at least one contemporaneous press account ("Astrodome Loses Beer Odor to Mystic Incense", LAT 9 Nov 73). So I think it is historically correct. I also found a press mention that this was the annual Hans Jayanti (birthday) celebration, held for the first time not in India, but in the US (ref added). Jayen466 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you delete and add material 10 timess every single day, usually with no discussion; your lectures about discussion are not persuasive.

I will follow Jayen's comment, but note that Momento was not satisfied with that and added another long phrase justifying the slogan. Again, unencyclopedic detail added for the purpose of making Momento's spiritual teacher look better. I am open to discussion but plan to remove it. Msalt (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Msalt I have made less than 20 edits in the last week, so by my calculation that's less than 3 a day, way fewer than Jayen and half as many as Francis. As for the Millennium addition, it is undoubtedly more important and "encyclopedic" than "The event featured spectacular staging and a 56-piece rock band".Momento (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 16 main page edits in one week is unusually few for you -- that's kind of the problem. It's a huge number for anyone else, and far more of yours are contentious than anyone else (except Janice Rowe.) Jayen466 fixes punctuation edits; you revert and reword. Unfortunately, more typical for you are days like March 16th (9 edits in mainspace) and March 8th (11 edits).Msalt (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In attempt to move this article forward and sidestep the endless revert wars over ex-premie websites, I added the Rick Ross Institute page on Elan Vital/DLM, which discusses Mr. Rawat. It is simply a set of links to a) Rawat-linked organizations, such as Elan Vital and TPRF, and b) news stories and court documents relating to Rawat, EV or TPRF. I trust that we can all accept this as a more independent external link that does not violate BLP. It has been on the Divine Light Mission's Wikipedia page for some time without any objection that I could find. Msalt (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For precedent, the Rick Ross site is linked from 117 places in wikipedia at the last count. 84.9.49.223 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not an independent link, it is a commercial site that solicits business for Ross. And it does violate BLP, EL and RS. You should remove it immediately. Momento (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an acceptable link, IMO. Self-published site. Hardly used as a source in Wikipedia or as an external link. In very few cases the site is used as a

convenience link (although there is no need in most cases, as sources are usually available from more direct/reputable sources) (see here, but never as a link in an external links section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL selfpublished pro cult is OK, anything critical doesn't fit your self manipulated guidelines 213.197.27.252 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

According to BLP, self published link by BLP subject is OK. Perhaps you'd like to remove this link since it violates BLP?Momento (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More independent, and, I thought, perhaps suitable as a compromise solution. However, upon closer scrutiny, I see the following potential problems: 1. Solicits donations from visitors. 2. Has an article on the opening of an enquiry by The Charity Commission, but does not report the outcome (which would appear to have exonerated EV – at least I cannot find any record of any negative outcome, and EV is still listed on the Charity Commission's website). 3. Has a Pennsylvania House Resolution indicating that an investigation of DLM and a number of other groups should be performed to see if there were any need for remedial legislation, but does not report the outcome (I am not aware such remedial legislation was deemed necessary in the end). 4. One half of the court documents (those involving Katz) are really just title pages, with as far as I can see no details available as to what the case was about, and what was the result. 5. In the other half of the court cases covered, the subject of this article is only mentioned in the most tangential manner (one appears to be a divorce case involving an ex-premie, in another a premie won unemployment benefit based on his First Amendment rights, in a third a defendant submitted that since he had committed his offences, he had become a better person due to his involvement in DLM and had seen the error of his ways). 6. Lastly we have the Register article on Wikipedia, hardly superior journalism.

A couple of academic studies are hosted on the site; that would be potentially useful, but the copyright situation appears doubtful. At least one of the articles hosted is for sale at JSTOR.org.

Bearing all the above points in mind, and having thought hard about it, I will take the link out for now, for the reasons above. Jayen466 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia policy does it say that external links may not solicit donations? If we follow that standard, we must also remove the link to Maharaji.net -- "The Foundation's activities are primarily supported by the ongoing generosity of appreciative individuals. Anyone can offer financial support to The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is a publicly supported charitable and educational organization. Contributions by U.S. taxpayers are deductible for income, gift, and estate taxes. For more information, please visit the How to Help page or the HelpDesk." (from the FAQ page [11]).

Most of the arguments here are specious at best, and many strong suggest POV pushing. I offered this link as a compromise, since I found it on a different Prem Rawat page. If those who are so eager to delete are in good faith, I challenge them to describe -- in general terms -- how ANY page that contains material critical of Prem Rawat would be acceptable to you. What standards, etc.?

Self-published? No, it's published by the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey.

Not external linked elsewhere in Wikipedia? That's how I FOUND the site, as I told you. Obviously it was, and from a Prem Rawat-related article that Jossi, Rumiton and Momento actively edit, until Jayen removed the link today.

It doesn't have every possible follow-up to every link it makes? That's an impossibly and unreasonably high standard.

BLP allows external links to self-published sites? I don't believe that's true. It positively recommends linking to an organization or person's OFFICIAL site, but that does not mean a blanket pass for self-published websites by the subject of an article, and even then only then when it's not unduly self-serving, etc. (As we've often discussed, standards for exteral sites are different than for sources, which I think you're conflating here, Momento.)

The only argument of all those above that seems to hold any water, in my humble opinion, is copyright. Does anyone have any evidence that rickross.com is violating copyright? Given that Mr. Ross is apparently a magnet for litigation, I doubt that his antagonists would sit idly by while he openly broke the law. What is Wikipedia's standard for sites where there is no indication, one way or the other, whether copyright has been violated or not? There is no indication that TPRF has licensed Prem Rawat's works, for that matter. Msalt (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The disclaimer

on rickross.com however states "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored." I take this to mean that all copyrighted material has been put up without permission. There is certainly nothing on the site to indicate that such permission has been obtained, nor is there any acknowledgment of the copyright owners on the pages concerned. The onus, it appears, has rather been shifted to the copyright owners – "we are putting up your material without asking you, but will take it down if you discover our infringement and send us a corresponding request." That is not honorable.

As for critical sites that would be okay: A site hosting critical scholarly articles or books with the appropriate permissions of the copyright owner, and no other questionable material, would be welcome. I believe we can also, in principle, link to any notable public record court judgments involving the subject of the article (although there may be strong BLP-related concerns militating against that). A recognised, published expert's article made available on the writer's own website might be permissible. Press articles available on the publication's own website or hosted elsewhere with permission should be fine.

In general, I do object to a site that puts up allegations without bothering to find out if they were subsequently substantiated or not. It is the same as putting up a newspaper article saying that Craig Charles was accused of rape, or Matthew Kelly was accused of child abuse (such articles exist), without adding (or bothering to find out) that they were later acquitted of all charges (which they were). As an encyclopedia, we should not be in the business of propagating such allegations.

I took the trouble to review the court documents hosted on rickross.com and found that there was either no content whatsoever, except for a nondescript title page, or that the cases did not concern Rawat at all, making them worthless for present purposes, but yet creating the impression that there were court cases against him. Apart from that, I find the inclusion of a couple's divorce proceedings on the page, revealing the most intimate details of their private lives to the world at large for apparently no better reason than that one of them had been a premie in their twenties, years prior to the marriage, profoundly distasteful.

I don't know what the situation is with sites that solicit donations; perhaps that is fine. It is not an issue with Rawat's own official site, since we are obliged to link to that anyway and the usual caveats don't apply; even extremists' websites are linked to in the articles we have on them. Jayen466 07:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jayen466, thanks for answerig my question about external links, but you're the only editor removing links for whom I don't have any concerns about commitment to NPOV. Thank you for your continued level headed and fair editing. I am diligently lookly for external links that are clearly appropriate (besides the Daily Californian.) While I look, to lighten the mood, here is a nice link -- about Guru Maharaji and his controversial group of premies in Nigeria, where he lives. [12] Msalt (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Spent some time in London in the seventies and studied marketing. Tut tut. Jayen466 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the copyrights. You've convinced me that Rickross.com doesn't meet the policy. (FYI, though, those court documents that you described as 'nondescript title pages" were the official notice of a denied appeal ("Certiorari denied"), and are actually quite important in legal terms to show that a case is not being appealed.)

Now, what evidence do we have that TPRF has licensed Prem Rawat's work? Again, we should apply the same standards. I see that they have put "(C) Prem Rawat" on one page but in fact, that's one of the oldest tricks used by websites that that illegally violate copyright. Msalt (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And it isn't just the page that is linked to that's important, it's the site. The Rick Ross site violates BLP, EL and RS.Momento (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four

The trouble with giving one millimeter of leeway in this article is that someone will drive a truck through it. You may "believe on balance, they are neutral" but you are inviting every editor to add links to sites that they "believe on balance, are neutral". I think we all agree that a link to Rawat's site is 100% correct. let's leave it at that.Momento (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, with all due respect, I am looking here at the thin end of a very nasty wedge. This is not a "fair cross-section of opinion." You could not be expected to know this, but the following quote: "We all got a past, man. Maybe we didn't do some of the things he did, but he was able to do those things because he is the 'Perfect Master,'" said devotee Jai Satchianand. "And he loves me and would never lie to me" is ex-premie manipulation. Jai Satchitanand is the old Indian premie greeting, one of the many things Prem Rawat abandoned 25 years ago, and it is unknown to the current western generation. It is also a pen name used by one of the ex-premies on their forum. This is an attempt to make premies look credulous and gormless, and thereby make Knowledge look stultifying. That is the mindset we are up against. It is pretty easy to do that with a newspaper, as the journalist is grateful for some colour for his story and not too worried about checking his source. Apart from that, newspapers are generally about entertainment, emotional gratification rather than studied viewpoints, and their credibility varies with their different writers. The question we should be asking is, "Would I expect to find this in the Encyclopedia Brittanica?" If not, it has no place here either. Rumiton (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent compromise, Jayen. And with all due respect, I don't think Rumiton and Momento have the credibility to veto compromise proposals. In fact, these comments by Momento and Rumiton are their clearest statements yet that they will not accept any compromise whatsoever. Given that, their devotion to Prem Rawat and their clear POV-pushing on the issue, I think we need to move forward with reasonable compromises based on policy. Or should we let PatW and Sylviecn veto all our compromises as well? They clearly do not agree that "a link to Rawat's site is 100% correct." Msalt (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I know that quote is fake. And I know enough Hindi or Sanskrit to know what Jay Sat Chit Anand means. ;-) Just looking for a compromise solution, to get a greater variety of views reflected. But I understand your concern. If it don't float, it don't float, and we'll think of something else. Jayen466 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I'd like to know exactly how you "know" that the quote in the article is "fake?" Do you have evidence of that? If so, please by all means, provide it. Otherwise, I have to assume you're engaging in innuendo and actual defammation of the integrity of Martin Richard, who is the author of that DC article. Is this how Wikipedians are supposed to evaluate sources? Listen to innuendo and false accusations by premies about detractors? Btw, Joe Whalen, who was quoted in the article, was a premie that held several positions in DLM for many years that included Community Coordinator of some of the largest premie communities in the U.S., such as Washington, D.C., Miami, and San Francisco. He was a DLM ashram premie for ten years. He also worked for DLM and DECA (in the legal department) in Miami at the behest of the most prominent premies in charge at DLM. Btw, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a Berkeley, Calif. premie would present themselves to anyone, including a reporter with a fake name, and say the things that the person did. But, why is anyone speculating about this? It's a published article, still on the internet, why not contact the person who has the byline, Martin Richard, and ask him, instead of falling for all of this nasty innuendo? Sylviecyn (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate statement in Rumiton's post is the fact that "Jai Satchitanand" indeed, was a frequently used greeting between premies. There's nothing wrong with the Daily Californian article. Contrary to the premie belief-system promoted by Elan Vital in its FAQ about ex-premies being a "hate-group," the fact is that nobody manipulated the writer of the DC article (I wonder, exactly how one does that??!?!?). The premie depicted in the article was never to my knowledge a poster on the ex-premie forum and I was posting regularly when the article came out. Rumiton's post is sheer speculation without a shred of evidence, which I find highly offensive. This is not Encyclopedia Brittannica, the editors here are for the most part, anonymoous, and not experts on anything in particular as is the case with Brittannica. I find nothing wrong with Rick Ross's website per se. Ross did write an essay about Jossi Fresco after the Register article came in early February, based on his observations of Jossi's editing of Ross's wiki article. But strongly disagree with placing Ross's site in the article as an EL substitute to replace a link to any ex-premie sites. If anyone wants to know what other lies are being spread about on this talk page about ex-premies, feel free to ask on my talk page!  :( Sylviecyn (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So Syl, are you saying that Jai Satchitanand was this "premie's" real name? Or a likely pen-name for a premie? I don't think so. And how does one do that? Easy, just ring the reporter up and say, "Hey, I am a premie, let me tell you the truth about my Lord!" and the reporter is all ears and notebook, as Collier describes in her book. (Thank you for that, by the way, I found it to be a true and rather touching portrayal of the beauty and madness of the time. We did not have the presence of BB in Australia, but somehow some of the ideas drifted across the Pacific.) Anyway, the point is, I can't prove the quote was a hoax, though I am 100% sure it was, you cannot prove it was genuine, though you are equally sure of that. It is an anonymous quote and unacceptable in Wikipedia. Jayen has shown the Ross site to be extremely unreliable, too. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not 100% sure of anything and have no right to spread this Elan Vital gossip here. I strongly recommend that you stop spreading all of this unfounded innuendo about ex-premies and Martin Ricard. I don't know who "Jai-what's-his name" was anymore than do you. But, you are impuning the integrity of a student journalist, Martin Ricard. Stop doing that. Where's Jossi when a premie is using this talk page to disrupt editing, that's what I'd like to know!!!!! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an anonymous quote, Sylvie, and at face value a derogatory one against premies. That does not necessarily impugn the journalist who reported it. The standards of his profession are lower than encyclopedic standards. It just doesn't belong here. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, but I really don't want to get into a pissing match with you. You're implying that the reporter is too dumb and too gullible to check his sources, just as pro-Rawat editors do with all other members of the media, which Elan Vital claims are "manipulated" by ex-premies, while EV goes on to call ex-premies a hate-group. But, there are several other more recent articles that could be used, such as "Blinded by the Light" by John MacGregor, and the several articles published by the Bristol Post in Bristol, England, when Maharaji spoke there. The fact is that pro-Rawat editors have always tried to claim here how stupid and gullible all members of the press and media are, regardless of who they are and how reputable their news organizations may be. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with finding press articles to link to that would satisfy Rawat's supporters here is clearly shared by the Prem Rawat Foundation whose website has a section called 'Press Room' [14]. This section consists of press releases issued by the Foundation and magazine articles all of which appear to be paid-for advertorials. It does not include a single independent press article. The fact is that all independent press articles about Rawat over the years have been critical of him which is why the Prem Rawat Foundation don't link to any, and none will satisfy the premie editors here. --John Brauns (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's an anonymous quote, Sylvie, and at face value a derogatory one against premies." Oh, nonsense, Momento. You're acting paranoid about this one. I don't see anything derogatory about it. Everyone has beliefs. Some people even believe that snot is God. (shrug) Beliefs are beliefs, and if a premie didn't trust his guru, I don't see how he would accept him as a guru. The quote appears to come from a premie who chose to be anonymous and clever about it. Trying to think about how the conversation would have gone, it would probably have been the last thing the premie said. REPORTER: Could I have your name? PREMIE: Jai Sat Chit Anand. REPORTER: How do you spell that? (and he got it wrong anyway, but only a premie would know that). Wowest (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wowest! How do you spell Rumiton? Momento (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I must apologize for insulting you in this way. I'll try not to do it again. Wowest (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked this page to be protected because of the slow edit wars now, 1rr has failed. You all should file RFAR and ASAP.

Why is Sylviecyn not listed as an involved party please? Or John Brauns for that matter? PatW (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• John has been added by Jossi in the mean while.
• I'll ask Sylviecyn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the protocol of proceedings like this. Are those of us named as involved parties expected to comment on the request for arbitration? I see that some but not all have. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, proceedings thus far are only on whether or not the case gets accepted by the ArbCom. Seems like it is going to be, so "unless there are further developments" (as the appointed clerck noted) it will get accepted tonight. Only if you want to influence that (e.g. make really, really sure they accept, or alternatively want to try to prevent it gets accepted) comments are not necessary. When the case opens, you'll have the opportunity to present "evidence" and/or propose ideas in the "workshop". (

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy) --Francis Schonken (talk

) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that is very helpful. I was reading the statements on there and it almost looked as is participants felt a need to declare where they stood. I'll wait for the arbitration itself. Msalt (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration underway

The request for arbitration was accepted:

Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

--

Technical Question

Forgive me if this is a dumb question. I saw that some folks are citing statistics about the article or their own posting numbers. Can anyone point me to a source for the tools to come up with these figures? And/or tell me the proper way to present them as evidence in an arbitration? I stumbled across a link on a user page [15] that used one tool (wannabe-kate?), and was able to generate a list for myself by replacing his or her username in the URL with my own, but I have no idea if there is a better or more reliable method. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Editcountitis first - just a friendly advise ;)
• Next would probably be Wikipedia:Edit count or Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters
• Kate's tool ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits ) is the mother of all tool-server based edit counters (read Zen wisdom on that page). You may get results like this one (this is my current result): http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Francis+Schonken&dbname=enwiki_p - "wannabe-kate" has the disadvantage of being slower, but the advantage of listing the articles you have edited most, e.g. my results: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Francis+Schonken&site=en.wikipedia.org shows I have currently 144 edits to the Prem Rawat article, and 375 to its talk page (will be higher by the time you get to click the link).
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits gives some info (if you're listed - I am #1560), or Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts (see Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts#10,000 edits for your humble servant).
• Re. results cited in wikipedia: people who cite them should give their sources, and then it would be easy to find out how they got them.
• Re. the value of such counts: relative I believe (also for ArbCom). For instance the number of edits to the Prem rawat article cited by Jossi (64 in the last year [16]), might as well be interpreted as *shaky* evidence that he prefers to work by proxy, or that he has little interest in the content of the article, or that he would not leave Wikipedia as a respected editor in the case his involvement with the article were reduced to zero, or that a
  Wikipedia:Checkuser would be indicated to see how much anon editing has been going on by this editor, or that he felt himself to be in full control of the content of the article not needing much edits, (or whatever) - there's usually little concrete evidence resulting from a mild attack of editcountitis (for instance, I've contended before that this major revert was more telling on Jossi's involvement prior to his self-restriction [17]). Wannabe-kate lists currently 473 edits to the Prem Rawat article for Jossi, and 2252 to the Prem Rawat talk page (here's the link - takes a few minutes to count the edits [18]). Indicates imho that people should give their sources when displaying editcountitis in an ArbCom case. Note that Jossi used to edit under another screen name, but the wannabe-kate tool shows zero edits for that previous name: this seems to indicate the accounts were properly merged. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Charanamrit - literally "Amrit (Holy Nectar)from the Charan (Feet of the Lord)," sometimes also referred to as "Holy Water," or, derisively, as "toe jam juice," is an artifact from the Prem Rawat cult which deserves mention, particularly if someone can find a reliable source referring to it. In Rawat's tradition, it means water which has been used to wash his feet. After singing Arti to Rawat's picture, in their various ashrams and premie houses, premies would be given a spoonful each, in their outstretched hands, to rub on their heads and drink. Some other Radha Soami offshoots now use regular water with a little sugar added as a substitute, since the original practice was felt to be too demeaning to the devotees. Wowest (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not an artifact from "the Rawat cult", it is an artifact from India. And "charanamrit" doesn't have to touch the feet.Momento (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat stopped it way before the other Indiana, in about 1974, I think. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Charanmrit" indeed is a Hindi term, but in the western countries it was inter-changeable with "Holy Water." The charanmrit ritual was that holy water, which had been touched by Prem Rawat's feet and considered extremely precious and blessed, was performed by all premies after nightly satsang (if the numbers of people attending was reasonable), and definitely by ashram premies as a part of their twice-daily arti-singing ritual. It was an ever-present, religiously practiced ritual, performed by all U.S premies I ever knew.

The ritual went like this: While singing arti, a person would hold/swing the arti candle in front of the main altar, which consisted usually of a chair with a foot pillow, and a large photo of Maharaji. The arti candles were made of cotton balls and ghee (clarified butter). After arti concluded and premies were doing pranam (bowing) to the altar, the "candle-holding-premie" would then take the jar of holy water and give a spoonful of it to each premie who, in outstretched, cupped hands, would sip the water from their hands and then wash the remaining wetness on their foreheads (third eye area). The holy water was routinely distributed by travelling mahatmas and western initiators/instructors, who toured U.S. communities, oftentimes after having been at a conference with Maharaji who had given them the "freshly made" holy water or charanmrit. The holy water would be diluted with distilled or purified water to extend the quantity and would then be distributed to ashram and community premies upon request. It was always present, kept on the altars in ashrams, at community centers, and the private altars that were kept by individual premies, whether or not they were ashram members. I don't know precisely when this ritual was discontinued, or if it even has been discontinued. But it was in practice in the U.S at least until the ashrams were closed in 1983. That's some impressive spin and revisionism you've got going there, Rumiton and Momento.  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No way it was stopped in 1974. That's when I received Knowledge. I remember it as a consistent feature all the way through till late '70s. I distinctly remember charanamrit was in use in the Brighton ashram circa 1978-9.PatW (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Time article, and referring to our sentence in the PR article, we currently have "in November 1972, Time Magazine reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship" and what Time said was "The Maharaj Ji's mother and three older brothers literally worship him, kissing his "lotus feet" whenever they are in his presence". Our version seems to imply it was done once to demonstrate something, possibly to their Western audience, however the Time article says that they did it every time they saw him. That is a big difference of context, and I know we talked about this sentence before, and I didn't have a problem with it then, and on the grounds that were given, I still don't. However, on looking at this more closely, I see this major contextual difference that I did not notice earlier. The argument given before was that the phrase "whenever they are in his presence" was not needed, as it is difficult to kiss one's feet if they are not present. That's true, however, by removing that phrase you also remove the fact that this was done continually. The current wording does not reflect that, and certainly skews and reduces it's meaning/significance. Maelefique (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including the phrase "whenever they are in his presence." It's reported in a reliable source and is indeed, factual concerning Rawat's family. If editors don't like the term "presence" I don't see any problem with using, "everytime they were with him," or something to that effect. Well spotted! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My objection would be be different -- I think this might belong in a long and nuanced discussion of Rawat's divinity (or not), but it's clearly inflammatory and culturally specific so we should act with great care. Granted, a big part of the Prem Rawat story is the culture clash between Indian religion and modern Western culture, but we need to be careful not to be drawn to lurid details just because they seem "wild." Time is a reliable source and they said this, but it's also possible that they misunderstood the cultural context, especially given the fact that the same mother and brother split very publicly and acrimoniously with Rawat two years later. Msalt (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It may lead to a conversation like that Msalt, but my main point is that the source, and our article, do not have the same meaning and I think that's a problem. I don't see the inflammatory nature of the quote. Would it be equally inflammatory to mention bishops kissing the ring of the pope every time? I am not trying to include this point because it may seem lurid or wild, I am including it because the 2 sentences are not equivalent. I don't think we can even start an argument with the assumption that Time "misunderstood" anything, unless you have some source for that idea. I don't think it is our job to interpret facts presented by reliable sources; that would be up to the reader. I also have no problem with adding additional context around that sentence if we feel that's necessary. Maelefique (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an NPOV/BLP query: to whom is it insulting and inflammatory to report sourced information that his family and/or followers kissed Prawat's feet in his presence?

Kissing the ring of the pope is a good example; I have seen it used as a lurid, "aren't they weird?" kind of detail. It depends on the context, and why we add it to the article. Rawat came to fame based in substantial part on novelty and oddity, due both to his unusually young age and Indian trappings. Some of that made him great, colorful copy for the press. But not all of those colorful details add to an encyclopedic understanding today; some may distract. I LOVE colorful writing; this just isn't the place. That is all. Msalt (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have time to elaborate but this was extensively discussed about 3 weeks ago in a thread entitled 'Early 70s Time article'. You can see a lot of objection was raised to my arguments about this. Please read. Will provide link later - have to dash nowPatW (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, there's the arti song too, containing,

Nectar from Satguru's feet is

Holy and it cleans us of our sins [...]

(It is cited in the Prem Rawat talk archive by PatW, but also contained in English in the footnotes of this Dutch article)

Rawat supporters seem to want to imply that this type of adoration is now definitely belonging to the past, and seem to no longer wanting to be remembered of that phase involving Rawat's feet. Maybe it held a more central place in those days more than 30 years ago than is good for their image now. Maybe Rawat supporters could cast some light here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I will copy the arathi to Wikiquote. An adaptation of an ancient song has no copyright, I believe. Btw, I always took arathi literally when I sang it. Andries (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are you going to put it? It is a traditional song in honour of one's guru and the Indians will no doubt still be singing it to honour their gurus in 500 years time. I hope you don't intend to use it against the subject of this article. Rumiton (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how using the DLM ashram version of Arti in wikiquote as "using it against Rawat." It's a fact about the history of his life and movement. How is that critical? Sylviecyn (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just said "Where are you going to put it?" Wikiquote will want to know who (whom?) is being quoted. This is a traditional bhajan. Rawat didn't write it, and it wasn't written about him. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice in India for people to kiss or touch the feet of people whom they respect. Family members touch the feet of their elders, students touch the feet of respected teaches and religious people touch the feet of gurus. It is so common as to be unremarkable. But "kissing feet" doesn't happen in America as a sign of deep respect and so Time couldn't resist titillating their audience with this strange Indian custom, they even "reported" that Rawat eats "vegetables", another weird Indian thing. It is, as a Msalt pointed out, a cultural difference and Time making an issue of it, is what magazines do. The point is, why is it in this article? Do we need to "titillate" readers? Rawat was a guru, it goes with the territory.Momento (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, what is common practice in India may not be common knowledge to a reader, in english. Keep in mind what this article is supposed to do. I think it is improper of you to speculate on Time's motivations, unless you have sources regarding them. Also, mentioning he ate vegetables seems in no way titillating to me, are you trying to suggest no Americans ate vegetables in the 70's?? Also, painting with the broad strokes suggesting this "is what magazines do", is just a straw man argument, we are talking about an already confirmed reputable source, not magazines in general.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To those who may not have been around then, vegetarianism in the 70s, before the health benefits became known, was a weird and suspect idea to most westerners. The magazine ref is indicative of the intent of the article, which was to ridicule. Rumiton (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting POV that I've never heard of before about vegetarianism in the 70s. Rumiton, it's not helpful to try to get inside the "intent" of any articles, because the fact is you don't know the intent. Being a vegetarian wasn't considered weird or suspect at all during the 70s in the U.S. It was rarer than it is now to be sure, but not suspect. Ashramites at the time might have been the only ones in this NRM that were required to be vegetarians (no meat, fish, or eggs -- drugs, tobacco, or alcohol) but it's well-known that most of the premies in the communities at large were strict vegetarians and also followed the no drugs, tobacco or alcohol guideline. What was done in their private lives might be a different story, but the culture in premie communities was to abstain -- ashram resident or not. Again, I don't get why you and Momento protest this so much because it's not controversial that premies lived this kind of lifestyle as suggested by Rawat. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, the article says, and I quote, "He dines on vegetables — liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream." I did not read that as saying he was a vegetarian, in fact, as Momento has jumped up and down trying to point out (figuratively, of course), vegetarianism was not a requirement for PR, only for those who followed him. If anything, the interesting part of that sentence was the ice cream reference. Also, I was around in the 70's, and I would strongly dispute your premise that in the 70's vegetarianism was a weird and suspect idea to most westerners. It seems funny that Momento objects to the article because of items it refers to that now seem odd, and you object to it because of things you claim seemed odd at the time it was written. How about a little historical objectivism here please? We either apply standards of today, or the standards of the society when it was written. You can't do both, and any historian can give you a 20 minute lecture on why history changes every 20 years: societal biases, and cultural shifts. If this article is meant to be factual and scholarly, you should apply the standards of the time, not the standards of today. Report the facts, if you feel the need to flesh it out with explanatory details, fine, but don't remove something from an article because now it seems unusual that people would do things that way back then. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "he dines on vegetables" is a clear reference to being a vegetarian, which I understand Prem Rawat was at the time, as many Indian people were and still are. If not, why say it? Everyone eats vegetables. But please stop saying there were dietary rules for people who received Knowledge. I attended probably 20 Knowledge sessions in the 70s and early 80s, conducted by 3 different instructors, and there was never any mention of what people should eat. I agree there was a strong "cultural" emphasis on living a substance-free, vegetarian lifestyle, but no promises were ever made. I myself lived for a year through 72-73 pretty much the way I always had (no details, no pack drill) before I joined an ashram, and then the ashram rules were certainly applied to me. Regarding charanamrit, I am no longer sure of exactly when it was discontinued, and it may have varied from country to country, some of the old Indian things were like that. But I am fairly sure the last bottle we received in my isolated community came via a visiting mahatma in 1974. Rumiton (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you are wrong. It is not a clear reference to his vegetarianism; At best, it's an inference. I'm not discussing if he was or if he was not, and your personal knowledge of his eating habits is not relevant, other than only as an indication of how it colours your reading of the text. Why say it? Well, that's speculation, which I don't think is important to do, however, I think the reference to vegetables was used as a counterpoint to the fact that he ate mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream as well. There are many people who eat very few vegetables. I know when I was the age he is in that article, I went out of my way to eat as few vegetables as possible, none if I could! And if you could, please point to where I said there were dietary restrictions necessary to receive Rawat's "Knowledge", I don't believe I've ever said that.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "...vegetarianism was not a requirement for PR, only for those who followed him." Or is that just another "inference"? Also, I would appreciate not being patronised in the way you did in your last edit summary. Far from civility. Rumiton (talk)

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or if you are deliberately misquoting me for some other less innocent reason. The full sentence I wrote about vegetarianism above was "I did not read that as saying he was a vegetarian, in fact, as Momento has jumped up and down trying to point out (figuratively, of course), vegetarianism was not a requirement for PR, only for those who followed him.". I was merely paraphrasing Momento, if you have a problem with his comments, I would suggest you take that up with him. You certainly wouldn't be the first one to disagree with things he's said here. As for the edit summary you're referring to, it is academic and precise as far as I can see. Having marked many student papers, I can say with some authority that your position is a common mistake. It isn't patronising, it's quite a common problem for many students of history to wrap themselves around conceptually, and it certainly needs addressing in this article by several of the authors, hopefully, one less now (I'm making the huge assumption that, since that's all you had to say about my last statement, you understand the idea a little more clearly now).-- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More waffling condescension, you seem unable to stop. I would be very surprised of Momento said vegetarianism was a requirement, other than for the minority who chose ashram life. Prove me wrong by all means. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no condescension here, although I did have to laugh when I read that and you referred to me as a waffling-anything, that was kind of funny. Also, could you please try and remember to include edit summaries? it makes it much easier to follow discussions when they are there. And by all means, condescend away if you feel the need. Afterall, it is considered an

important practice. Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange regarding this between Momento and me, you would see that the statement in question was in fact regarding life in the ashrams. I honestly don't see the need to quote paragraphs of text on the same page as the original text. At this time, it still has not been archived, so I'm making the assumption that you just didn't bother to read it first, it would be more difficult to believe your comprehension was at fault. Having said that, I have somewhat misquoted Momento, we were actually talking about the "stringent lifestyle" requirement, no drugs, sex, tobacco that was mentioned in the Time article, I think I made the assumption (bad, bad, bad!) that this included vegetarianism as well. But just so I'm clear on this, now you're saying that vegetarianism was the norm in the ashrams? Was it mandatory in the ashrams, or just "recommended", nudge, nudge, wink, wink?-- Maelefique ^(talk)

16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you when you say: "We either apply standards of today, or the standards of the society when it was written. You can't do both..." As any interesting subject recedes in time there will be a procession of attitudes between its own time and the present, not just two. It is the values of today that are important. The impact it had in its day can certainly be mentioned, but only in context, and the cultural context needs to be explained. Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said history changes every 20 years. That's not a disagreement, that's an understanding of my point on your part. If you try and maintain both in one article, you end up with a mish-mash of an effort that doesn't make much sense. Mostly what it does is it allows people who don't like something in an article to flip-flop between whichever view suits their needs to argue against its inclusion. It is not the values of today that are important in a historical fact-based article. That is a poor assumption that any first year history professor will correct you on. Report the facts, add context of the time in question, and discuss based on today's values, certainly. But only applying today's values to something in the past is not the correct way to document history. The obvious example of course is slavery, clearly wrong. Let me say that again, clearly, clearly wrong in every context today. However, at the time, morally justified, and quite common. Does that make every slave-owner evil? Does that make Thomas Jefferson evil? A bad man? Should he have known better? Could he get away with it today? Yes, he argued against it, and made motions to try and stop it, but the short fact is, he had slaves, and he kept slaves until he died. I hope you see my point. I don't really want to discuss slavery here, I only use it as a straight-forward example of what I'm trying to show you (on a sidenote, I changed "black and white example" to " straight-forward", the pun was unintended, but humourous).-- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After all my blather, I re-read the paragraph in the article, and have no objection to how it's used there. It seems appropriate in context. I still hold the general principles I went on about, but I'm sorry for adding many unneeded words to a talk page that really doesn't need them. Msalt (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Indians do or don't do for purposes of this article, imo. Prem Rawat continued the practice of holding darshan lines at his events in western countries where premies lined up to kiss his feet -- well throughout the 70s and long after the family split. To tell you the truth, I don't know if holding darshan lines is a common Indian practice. He continues to do so in Australia in the present day. Time Magazine is reporting a fact. Rawat's mother and brothers kissed his feet in public. Plus, I don't see the article as "titillating" at all. I don't even see it as critical or controversial. It's Time Magazine. It is what it is. Besides, it would be most helpful if editors stopped characterizing the sources so much. If we have a reliable source with the added bonus of being true, isn't that a good thing?  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is, why out of the entire Time article do we use only that sentence? Why don't we use - "Maharaj Ji began, while still a toddler, to deliver inspired satsangs (sermons)" - that's good info. Or what about - ""If you can become perfect," the Maharaj Ji told his disciples in Delhi's Ram Lila Grounds last week, "you can see God. That's the way I did it." - it's succinct, far more important to Rawat's notability and encyclopedic. My answer would be, taking one sentence out of context to make a point is bad editing. The foot kissing sentence is redundant, Rawat's acceptance as Satguru by his family is already included in the article with - "When his father died in 1966, the eight-year-old Sant Ji Maharaj (as Prem Rawat was then known) was accepted by his family and his father's followers as the new Satguru". All "foot kissing" does is make Rawat the object of a cultural difference and we don't want to do that, do we?Momento (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, noo... I asked the question, that wasn't it. However, a discussion on whether that sentence needs to be removed for some reason might be another topic you are welcome to start. Also, since you brought it up, the paragraph from Time that mentions " you can see God. That's the way I did it", I thought was a place that shows some hypocrisy from Rawat, he suggests he was able to do that by leading a stringent life-style, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol. Since we know he no longer leads that lifestyle, does that mean he no longer sees God? He is no longer perfect? Is he claiming he was perfect? I can't believe he's trying to claim that once he's attained perfection he can then bring drugs, sex, tobacco and/or alcohol into his life, abandon a stringent life-style, and maintain perfection. I look forward to your interpretation.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique, you perfectly demonstrate the problem with taking a sentence in isolation. The article does not say Rawat led the "stringent life-style, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol", it was what Time claims he suggested for "his devotees". And as we know from other sources, that requirement was only for people who chose to live in the ashram.Momento (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No Momento, I think you need to read it again. The context is about that lifestyle and the end of the paragraph is "that's the way I did it". In my reading of that paragraph, that seems to indicate that both the lifestyle, as well as the opening of one's "third eye" are requisites to become perfect, and that's the way he did it. Or are you suggesting that his quote is completely out of context, and that his reference to that's how he did it refers to the fact that he somehow became perfect, and was thus able to see God? In which case you would have to ask what that has to do with the rest of the paragraph, wouldn't you? Either way I don't see where I've perfectly demonstrated any problem, other than, possibly, your interpretation. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates the problem with relying on one source. A little research will show that the "stringent lifestyle" only applied to people who wanted to live in an ashram and was not a requirement for Knowledge. The author is wrong.Momento (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that "true believers" had very little choice about moving into the ashrams, they were told not to think, but to devote themselves to him, and he suggested the best way to do that was by moving into the ashrams. However, before someone blows a gasket on that statement, I admit I don't have those references right in front of me at this moment, but if it's really necessary I will go find them for you. On the other hand, I don't see you supplying any references that contradict this article. If you have any, I wouldn't mind seeing those as well. I would agree that he doesn't seem to make it a requirement for knowledge now, but I'm not sure that's relevant. Also, you seem to be getting away from the point again, you never answered my question above, instead you have changed it to some other argument entirely. If you could please try and stay on topic, that would be great. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who blurts things out "stream-of-consciousness" style.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton "By the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged". In other words less than 1 in 40 joined the ashram.Momento (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All you did was substitute the words "most dedicated" for the words "true believers". Might be my fault for phrasing that incorrectly to begin with, but it looks to me like we're saying the same thing here. But for clarification, is Melton saying each ashram housed 500, or 500 in total across the world, or 500 across the USA?-- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton is saying that in the US tens of thousands were initiated and about 500 of those lived in more than 20 ashrams. So clearly living a "stringent lifestyle" was not necessary to receive Knowledge.Momento (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're accepting facts not in evidence again, I was curious about the ashram numbers, thanks for that, but now you're implying that if you didn't live in an ashram, you weren't living a stringent life, and since thousands were initiated, it wasn't a prerequisite to live a stringent lifestyle to gain his "Knowledge" (A∴B∴F??!)? Am I following your argument there? And you still haven't answered my original question, regarding the quote from Prem where he says "that's how I did it", what is your belief about what he's referring to in that paragraph from the Time article?-- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument, or facts, are that according to Melton - of "tens of thousands initiated" only about "500 lived in the ashram". Who knows what people were doing in their own homes but the idea that Rawat suggested a "stringent life-style for (all of) his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol" is the author's misunderstanding, it was only a requirement for those living in ashrams. As Melton says, "He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles". What did Rawat mean by "that's how I did it"? According the author, he's saying that "If you can become perfect, you can see God. That's the way I did it". But I don't think the quote is accurate, the only thing Rawat describes as "perfect" is Knowledge and Rawat obviously had no say in how and where the author puts it. If you do more research, you'll see the big picture and you'll be able to see the difference in what Rawat has said versus what other people say he has said. I can't help you any more. Momento (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevant bits, like you cite, can be added, but there is still no valid reason to remove the kissing bit, that I have seen presented. If this is or was an important cultural aspect of life around Prawat, which it appears to have been if someone kissed his feet every time they met him, then it ought to be noted. The other bits are good too, and should be added as well.

t/e

20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you're missing the context. Time notes that the foot-kissing was a "demonstration of worship"; that's the key point, not the foot kissing itself. The article at that point is discussing claims of Rawat's divinity, so it's not out of context at all. Msalt (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, it wasn't "an important cultural aspect of life around Rawat" in India or with Indians, it was expected. It only becomes newsworthy when you take it out of context. And Msalt, I agree with you. The important aspect is the "demonstration of worship" but it is more neutrally covered in the article in the following sentence - "As a guru, he carried divine connotations for his followers" - without the cultural anomaly. I don't care if it stays in, and I don't want to add any of the other sentences from the Time article, I am just wanting to point out that the article would be better if, when possible, we summarized multiple sources rather than take a single sentence from a single source.Momento (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This form of greeting in India has often been misconstrued as an act of worship. Its called pranam.We have no equivalent word for it in English. Sometimes shortened by joining the hands together and bowing down to the person. It is an expression of humility and symbolic of seeing god in the other person. Acts of symbolic humility are not as common place in the West but do exist. The Pope washing the feet of members of his Church is an example. By reenacting this he is trying to portray an act of humility not creating a foot washing cult. Though it appears the Times Magazine writer may have seen it differently if he reported it with no prior understanding of the cultural history behind it.Balius (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the practice in India is, but I know that in America, the foot kissing/touching is referred to as Darshan and it is ANYTHING but a casual greeting. Read the article by devotee Lucy Dupertuis, "How People Recognize Charimsa: The Case of Darshan in Radhasaomi and Divine Light Mission," Sociological Analysis, v47 No 2, Summer 1986 p111-124. I have a PDF I can lend anyone who does't have a copy available. She starts by noting that "Satguru does not merely represent the Absolute Lord, but Satguru is that Lord's form, or embodiment, or incarnation..." She then goes on to describe the ecstasies of enjoying the Satguru's presence, including great detail on kissing the feet, tasting "nectar" from the feet, intense energy like an electrical charge that emanates from the feet, etc.

Basically it says in 15 pages what TIME says here in 1 line; that kissing his feet is a strong manifestation of the belief in his divinity. Read the article, "he carried divine connotations" is a 10 watt bulb, the real quote is 100W. Momento and Rumiton have consistently sought to disguise the divinity claim in the early Rawat movement, as they do here; however our reliable sources clearly show that it was a notable and indeed crucial element. It's fine and wise that Rawat chose to jettison that part of his movement, but we shouldn't pretend it never existed. Msalt (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one said it was a "casual greeting", please don't put words in people's mouths. The challenge is to use available sources to represent this phenomenon (I use this word after consideration) in an intelligent and fair way. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the practice of darshan, whether ongoing or discontinued, is notable and deserves a mention. And frankly, I find the practice of darshan with its spiritual connotations a more notable feature to include in this article than the fact that members of his family used something similar as a ritualised form of greeting. It sounds like Dupertuis would be a suitable source for this; I reckon she would also have written something about the religious background of darshan. It should be remembered, or noted, that darshan (like satsang), after all, is a common Indian religious concept that is by no means exclusive to Prem Rawat. Jayen466 15:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see here[19] to see previous argument about this very same matter.PatW (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's formal 'darshans' have been a regular feature of worldwide events (often several times a year for hundreds possibly thousands of people) right through his time in the west certainly until the late nineties when I stopped going. I have heard he continues this formal reception today but I don't actually know since neither Momento nor Jossi have told us (even when asked). Darshan lines are/were a devotional act with real symbolic meaning to premies. As anyone who went to these events will recall there was always an ante room next to the chamber where Rawat sat with his socked feet crossed on a pillow to receive followers. That ante room was called 'The Darshan recovery room' I distinctly recall that. This room catered for the dozens who literally fainted when they kissed his feet. (NB I am myself using the word 'literally' as did the Times reporter .. my meaning is to make no mistake that they really did faint!) Many would be weeping after coming into his presence. This is not really a casual greeting is it? It is an Indian tradition yes, but it was considered a very special opportunity for 'premies' to demonstrate their humility and love for their Guru. Rawat felt and probably still really does believe that this is his gift for premies. I think that goes along with his belief in himself as being the Perfect Master (Satguru) of this time as his father told him. I have seen Prem Rawat in private allow people to prostrate before him in this way. I was talking to him once (1990ish) and someone literally flopped at his feet full length and crawled up to his feet and kissed them. The gesture struck me as a highly emotional gesture of total dedication as if he were drinking from a fountain- certainly not a casual greeting but a lot more. This was from Maharaji's fundraising top-man (an Israeli fellow). It was a little distracting for me but I have to say that Maharaji did not give me the least impression that the same demonstration was expected of me. And I credited him for that. I have to admit that I am mildly breaking my word here as, before I was permitted to go to Rawat's residence, I was effectively vetted by his top aide who asked me not to tell anyone about what I observed going on around Maharaji as it might 'confuse people'.

But no, the formal darshan line is a very different sacred occasion for premies and essentially full of meaning. It is actually very much a worshipful act in as much as those doing it are full of respect and praise for him and certainly feel that they are receiving some almost mystical experience from it. We were often told that Maharaji would be giving 'Holy Breath' (again right through my involvement). This entailed you inviting him to literally blow in your direction often with a hand gesture on his part. Your gesture of invitation was made quite clear in prior instructions that you should cup your ear with your hand. I did this literally dozens of times.That was the tone throughout my involvement. He is for many a personal Lord, Saviour and indeed Divine for some. It's pointless arguing how big or little a god he or others think he is. To a goldfish, god is a bigger goldfish. Rawat is often his devotees god. Others may just say he's their master - it varies. The Times article reported fairly and maybe with some mild surprise. So what? No big deal. That was natural for the time. I don't see why people have to tiptoe around the Times wording as if it was going to bite. The sad thing is that even telling you this here honestly is considered by many premies as an act of betrayal of private matters - even effectively secret matters (maybe something in between since 'darshan' is not 'officially' a secret in the league of the techniques of meditation.) It's almost as if when these private precious things are made public then they are being devalued or maybe the 'spell is somehow broken'. I'm not sure. However that is I believe largely why Jossi is so concerned to so strictly limit information to books and has historically warned me of 'soapboxing' etc. on so many occasions and now partly why I gather I am almost certainly going to be banned from here. I am fairly sure that Jossi's is counting on many of us being banned to make clear the way for his successor in the event he also is required to not remain here. So I'll say my goodbyes now and ask those impartial remaining editors to really read up thoroughly before accepting some premies versions of things.PatW (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is
supposed to settle them down.  But when governments fight, who is 
going to settle them down?  The only one who can settle the 
governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God 
Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind. 
 
- Prem Rawat,Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 

The request for arbitration was accepted:

Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

--

comment here 147.114.226.172 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we already ignoring Margaret Singer for some reason, I may have missed the topic if she came up already. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only but a passing reference to Divine Light Mission in an article by Singer, published in January 1979 in Psychology Today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not true jossi. If you could refrain from phrasing your opinions as facts, it would be a little less contentious of an atmosphere around here. I think most of us would agree you are somewhat of an expert on this subject (biased, COI-ed, or not). When you make statements like this, it is easy for people to believe they are true; and that is not helpful at all in terms of directing the research that people are pursuing for this article. Inviting an open disussion instead of attempting to close the door would be much more helpful.

Former members report that in [Maharajji's] Divine Light Mission the lights would be dimmed and the guru would pass among the followers bestowing 'divine light' on individuals by pressing on their eyes until the pressure on the optic nerve caused them to see flashes of light. This was reframed as Divine Light.

— Margaret Thaler Singer (1995). Cults in our midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. p.136.

ISBN 0787900516. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

-- Maelefique ^(talk)