Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Use of Cagan's Book

I understand that the status of Cagan's book as a source is currently being mediated, but my understanding from past discussions is that we (the editors who discussed it at the time) agreed that it could only be used for non-controversial content such as the number of children Rawat has. I have just read two items in the article that attack ex-premies that are sourced to the book. One related to Macgregor and the other to ex-premies engaging in criminal activity. I ask the editor concerned to respect the previous agreement and remove both of those items, and any other controversial material solely sourced to the book. Thank you. --John Brauns (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Add to that the flaws when one actually starts reading Cagan's text, see my remarks above in #Customs incident...
The bulk of the previous discussion is at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible”, John has a point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Who added and where is the edit that uses Cagan's book for these statements? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just check Momento's recent contribution list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact I had already removed one, before reading John's comment [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that it was you, Will, that added this. [2] I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing something. It was added by Momento and deleted by me. Momento then asked that I restore it. I did so in a more appropriate location and with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That all sentence needs to be removed. If we include a mention of Macgregor's article, we will need to inform readers of the controversy that ensued, legal wranglings, the apology, and affidavits, and that is not a good idea. Remove the lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just about Macgregor, but about other contentious material added by Momento sourced to Cagan. As you know, Cagan is one of the topics on the mediation list. As pointed out above, there was a consensus to not use Cagan for contentious assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue this in the section below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a discussion of Macgregor. This thread concerns Momento's use of Cagan in various edits. If no one here agrees with the new Cagan claims I'll remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Adressing John’s concern in the below thread, concerning the stated deficits in the Cagan book: It is only a biography. People who buy it are probably interested in its subject. The antagonism that surrounds the subject is also conditioned by the subject. The only circumstance that makes his detractors notable at all is their, albeit twisted, connection with the subject. A biography of John Lennon will name his assassin, but needs not give room to his personal motives. In WP, there is a seperate article on Mark David Chapman. Of course Chapman had his reasons, but they are not of interest in the context of a John Lennon bio. You can of course write a book on Israel without interviewing Hamas, Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, although they probably think you should. It is enough to mention and characterize the conflict, and it can still be a highly informative monography, no need to derogate it. If one wants to hear the voice of Hamas, they can easily do so anywhere else. Like I said above, the guest of a gourmet restaurant is not obliged to go through the contents of the garbage can. He is very thankful for the garbage can. If the reataurant had none, that would raise suspicion the waste is recycled in the meals. But for the description and appraisal of the restaurant the garbage plays only a role insofar, as the bugs are not supposed to populate the kitchen. As a guest, I don’t need to really hate the bugs, I just don’t want to eat them or their metabolic products. Even an ecology-minded person has a right to a clean plate. And that is, to my understanding, the position of a person who purchases the Cagan book (I hope you forgive me the somewhat drastic analogy, no offence meant. I am just trying to help clarifying the logics of a complex and turbid situation).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC
Rainer, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making derrogatory remarks about detractors, former followers, etc. Your post above is a bit over-the-top and borders on personal attacks because of the way you characterize detractors as having a "twisted" connection to..." And, with due respect, enough with the gourmet restaurant garbage and flies analogy. That's the second time in two days you made that same veiled personal attack against John Brauns (I have to assume you refer to myself, too). For the record, I don't have any connection to the subject anymore at all, twisted or otherwise. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Sylvie, I owe you an apology. I won’t use that unsavory analogy again, promise. Thinking it over, it may have given me a little sense of compensation for that sick feeling that persisted for almost two days after my first encounter with EPO. So it's maybe a rather personal thing and has nothing to do on WP. P.S.: I am now pretty immune. And I do have quite my own ideas concerning the connection between you or John and Prem Rawat, but that does not belong here, either.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was this edit made with consensus? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Were these [3][4][5]? Momento (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone discuss changing the section headings to "Disappointment" and "Opposition"? If you want to go by the rules Steve, and I do, very few edits in the last few weeks have been made by formal consensus. Perhaps we should institute no edits without discussion and consensus? I would support that.Momento (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there has been opposition to Rawat, so why would we only allow one source and not another? Frankly, I'm surprised that the "ex-premie" group has been included in the article (as they are an "insignificant minority") but since it is currently accepted Cagan's must be allowed to comment on them. To exclude Cagan on "opposition" is unacceptable bias.Momento (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I'm in favor of following the rules but what are we supposed to do about this? Every few days this part of Melton's comment is left off the quote -" Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission". Do I have to put it back in or can editors be instructed to use all of a quote or none at all.Momento (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I'm surprised to see you make that request because just the other day you added a quotation with no indication that you'd deleted a couple of sentences from the middle.[6] Do you think that it is acceptable when you do it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added new topic to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No concensus was reached for that edit, Steve. I thought we were going to wait until the Cagan book issue is resolved before adding contentious edits from her book as Momento did. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Please have a look at the Consensus section, everyone. I'd like to know if you all agree or disagree with my idea. Once again, while I can't formally impose anything, I strongly urge editors to discuss changes here before making them. Steve Crossin (talk) (review)

Cagan, again

I counted ten cites in the article from Andrea Cagan. They are cites 1, 6, 21, 22, 48, 57, 66, 72, 120, and 124. I don't see how the cites can continue to be used until the reliability of Cagan is settled. In fact, it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse to be writin any "proposals" (which should be titled "drafts) until all of the disputed sources are resolved. Also, the "Critical" section contains this very weasely statement:

Critical former followers became known as "ex-premies" and some have undertaken illegal activities against Rawat and his followers.[120] [121][122] A website started in 1996 utilizes the term, www.ex-premie.org.[123][122] Elan Vital has characterised former followers that became vocal critics as disgruntled former employees.[121]

"Some" is a weasel word. The phrase "some have undertaken illegal activities" is also weasely, and it's cited from Cagan's book (which should not be used for this because her section on ex-premies is all hearsay, and based a long list of libellous lies about certain ex-premies taken from the EV website). The news report about Ackland (from the Courier Mail) says he was stopped by the police when he tried to protest, not that he's a criminal. Furthermore, not only critical or vocal former followers refer to themselves as "ex-premies." It's a term that is interchangeable with "former followers," like ex-husband or ex-wife is interchangeable with former husband, wife, etc. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"some have undertaken illegal activities..." & ref

Is there a consensus to undo this edit? I'd be in. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Francis, thanks. The phrase you highlighted should be removed. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. It is an important fact about the "ex=premie" group.Momento (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Momento, it's not a fact. It's innuendo based on trumped up lies made up by Elan Vital in order smear Rawat critics. It also uses guilt by association. The sole purpose of its insertion by you was denegrate Rawat's critics. It has no place in an encyclopedia. And, btw, you never gained concensus for inserting that line, because I would have disagreed strongly. You made a unilateral edit. It really must come out of there soon -- long before proposals and concensus is reached on sources. That could take months. It's Cagan repeating Elan Vital defamation of character, nothing more. Sylviecyn (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Momento, did you discuss that edit or seek consensus for it? I don't see anything of that type. Furthermore, the use of Cagan as a source is in dispute and is subject to mediation. That edit appears contentious and inflammatory, and is counterproductive. I suggest that it be reomved until we can reach a consensus about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the sentence had been in existence for more than a week, I suggest it stays there until we reach consensus about it. That was Francis was doing and I agree with him. Momento (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did you discuss that edit? I don't see it. I dont' se any consensus for that material, nor do I see you asserting that there is one. Since it's derogatory information from a dubious source we should remove it pending agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to unprotect the article to make piecemeal edits. You said so yourself and Steve agreed. He's made a mirror article for edits, let's go with what we all agreed.Momento (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The request is not to unprotect the article - the request is to make one edit to undo an edit made without consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Eleven editors, including yourself, agree to Steve's proposal, please stick with it.Momento (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting changes is consistent with the agreement we all made. If Momento insists on retaining the edits he made without consensus before the page is protected then that prevents making changes to remove the material. If he wishes to veto an edit supported by several other editors then that's within the scope of the agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are several edits that were made without consensus, and if I am not mistaken, such an edit by one editor triggered another edit by another editor, and that is where we find ourselves now. So, I would support a deletion of all these edits that were made without consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if a removal of content that had limited/no consensus would fit in with the protection policy. I think it best the mirrored version be worked on, and when there's consensus for copying or adding content through a {{editprotected}}, then that can be done. I think it would be difficult to determine all the edits that were made with consensus, and those that were made without consensus, and it would take a large time to determine this. Content in the article is disputed, that's why it's protected, and being mediated. I think in the interests of the mediation, the article should be worked through as it stands, and we shouldn't waste time trying to determine what edits are OK and what edits aren't, that's why it's at mediation. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex-premie: connotations

@Sylviecyn. Not really; I have several friends that have stopped being actively involved with the subject of this article, and that no longer consider themselves "followers", and they will be very offended if they would be referred as "ex-premies". The only people that refer themselves as such, are these that have chosen to become active critics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts and the subject of this page, Jossi. What your friends think or don't think about the term is irrelevant to this discussion. The terms 'ex-premie" and "former follower" are synonomous and interchangeable. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ex-premie" and "former follower" are synonomous and interchangeable? According to whom, exactly? As I said above, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not entitled to our own facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
They are synonymous and interchangeable because the prefix "ex" means "former." "Ex-premie" doesn't mean "vocal critic of Prem Rawat," it means "former premie," which is the same thing as "former follower." Please see Dictionary.com's definitions of "ex-". Sylviecyn (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the only group that defines 'ex-premie' as only refering to former followers who post on the internet is Elan Vital. The people who came up with the web-site name clearly intended it to mean any former follower of Prem Rawat, and in fact it had been used that way before ex-premie.org existed. If Elan Vital want a short name for former followers of Prem Rawat that criticise him on the internet then they should come up with their own name, not try to hijack an existing term. --John Brauns (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the only group that defines 'ex-premie' as only refering to former followers who post on the internet is Elan Vital. Where exactly? I do not see such mention. As for sources. which sources describe an "ex-premie" in any context other than to refer to former follwoers that have become critics? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This 1983 article in Hunduism Today uses the term [[7]] quite naturally in the normal English usage manner of ex- meaning former as we have been trying to explain to you so many times.--John Brauns (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Tx, the source shows:
  • Term "ex-premie" was used more than 10 years before ex-premie.org came to life;
  • Term "ex-premie" not loaded with negative connotations, at least not for the author(s) of that article.
(and some other interesting stuff in that article, of no relevance in this discussion thread, but useable for Wikipedia as far as I can see) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That article use of the term, is consistent with my argument above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you have no evidence that the ex-premie refered to is an 'active critic', and he certainly didn't post on the internet on 1983. The fact is that people who have rejected Rawat as their master did so for a reason, and the only evidence of those reasons we have are those people who have spoken out. If you argue, as you have done in this case, that anyone who does speak out becomes part of an unrepresentative minority (that you then vilify), you have a responsibility to provide some evidence that the majority of former followers think differently. You have not done so, so it is reasonable for neutral readers to come to the conclusion that you have no such evidence. Also, in the article, it appears to be the author that coined the term, 'ex-premie', not the former follower quoted. --John Brauns (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A mention does not make this relevant whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rawat had millions of "former followers" before the "ex-premie" group started its website.Momento (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this information? The fact that Rawat has lost 'millions' of followers is definitely noteworthy and should be included in the article. --John Brauns (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's already included in the article.Momento (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I could understand the need for some people to promote their website, or to promote the view that hey represent anything else than just themselves. But if that group of people were relevant and/or notable, we would have multiple reputable sources that describe them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple sources, Jossi, and EPO doesn't need Wikipedia for promotion. Just Google it. And please knock off the sarcasm and baiting, Jossi, you've been making a habit out it and it doesn't help. Sylviecyn (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no sarcasm or bating in my comment. Are you saying that there are multiple reputable sources that describe the views promoted on that site? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, considering that you created an article on The Prem Rawat Foundation. I think that for you to accuse others of using Wikipedia for promotion is, well, lacking in self-reflection. Maybe it's better to avoid discussing the purported motivations of other editors. Unless you want your motives discussed then don't discuss the motives of others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Will. That article is about a registered foundation about which there are substantial sources, and if you think otherwise, go ahead and place it on AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< I have refactored my comment above. I prefer to engage in constructive debates as these that are taking place at the different proposals pages set by the mediator. From now on, I will simply ignore any comment, questions, or opinions presented in these pages that are not 100% focused in improving this and other articles. I invite other active editors to take the same attitude ... I think we all had enough of useless debates that do not move us forward in this content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "ex-premie" website, I found another reference. "Online: Working the web: Cults: Creating a cult is a cakewalk, says Clint Witchalls. All you need are a few ideas, an audience and access to the net. " The Guardian (London, England). (Feb 13, 2003): The golden age of cults was in the late 60s and early 70s. Nearly every self-respecting hippie had dabbled with a bit of wicca or shared a bowl of mung bean stew with a Hare Krishna devotee. Remember the Divine Light Mission? Remember the Moonies? Recovering members can be seen licking their wounds at www.ex-premie.org and www.xmoonies.com respectively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

  • I've noticed that the discussion on this page is slightly unfocused. This page at the moment should be used for discussing the mediatiion, and the article, but not endlessely debating over details. I feel that it's time that the discussion is refocused, therefore, I ask that discussion here either ceases, or is at a very minimal amount. This talk page will be used to discuss the article in a focused, structured way. It also has a list of issues to be mediated, and they can be worked through one by one. I've added soft redirects to the talk page, for ease of access. I'd ask that all parties engage in discussion on the proposal pages, note that not doing so could equivilate to silent consensus. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claim?

Is this an "exeptional claim" that needs to be removed? [8] Please provide rationale:

Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, [1978] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission

What is needed is maybe to simply change the verb to: "found little support and have did not affected the progress of the Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A) It's a claim that is only made by one source in one place. B) The organization underwent a loss of membership in this period and disbanded a few years later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(A) So now we can start removing content sourced to scholars which have not been mentioned in other sources? Are you sure of this? How is this argument compatible with other discussions you are having about singular claims made in much less reputable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(B) For that, we only need to change the verb as proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook is a tertiary, non-academic source that misspells Mishler's name. This is not the highest quality source available. His assertion that Mishler's widely reported comments had no effect on the "progress" of the DLM is unsourced. Since the plain facts show that the DLM was not undergoing progress but was in a serious decline the statement is extraordinary. As orginally worded it placed too much weight on Melton's negation and too little on the actual assertions by Mishler. According to Melton, Mishler's complaints — that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use — found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.[9] Iff we gave substantially more space to Mishler's various criticisms then mentioning Melton's opinion might be worthwhile. But we barely mention Mishler so Melton's extraordinary claim is out of place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are bringing the argument of "extraordinary claim", which is defined in Wikipedia here WP:REDFLAG, in relation to what Melton is saying. I would argue that you are engaging in WP:OR by making these arguments. Mishler is the one about which WP:REDFLAG applies: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended, if at all. After all, we do not know that Mishler's comments had in relation to impact in membership.; we are simply quoting a scholar's opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, if we give Mishler's assertions more space then Melton's opinion may be worth including. It's poor writing to make the rebuttal as long or longer than the assertion. Regarding the Mishler's assertions, they seem in character with what we know of him. It is not at all extraordinary that he would criticize Rawat, and we have several sources which say he did so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not at all extraordinary that he would criticize Rawat, sure. But what I am arguing that it is a WP:REDFLAG, as of reports of a statement by someone against an interest they had previously defended. That is in WP policy for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That may be so, but the "redflag" requirement is satisfied because we have numerous highly reliable sourcs which conform that he said those things. WP:REDFLAG does not prohibit us from reporting "exceptional claims", it only requires that we have highly reliable sources to back them up. Are you seriously arguing that Mishler didn't become a critic of Rawat, and that he didn't say the things attributed to him? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG cannot be put aside because something was said multiple times, Will. Redflag is there to avoid reporting opinions that are made by people that may have had an ax to grind. That is exactly what thee policy is there for. And not, not waved enough unless you have taken notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Associated Press and United Press International both carried quotations from Mishler (apparently froma press conference). The assertions have also been reported in scholarly sources and even in Melton. WP:REDFLAG simply requires that we support extraordinary claims with highly-reliable sources. Which source is not highly reliable? If one of them is a problem I'm sure we can find a better replacement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No will no. You are missing the point completely. It does not matter how many wires you throw at it: WP:REDFLAG is pretty unambiguous about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear (and brief):
  • Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Which sources are you saying are not "highly reliable"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Imho, per the discussion in this section, this edit should be undone. Further, we do not systematically "use all the quote or none". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There are unresolved disagreements about that deletion, therefore I object. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jossi is correct; request declined. Thanks for the help. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, please state the unresolved disagreements, or where to find them. Above, you apparently ran out of arguments a week ago, and didn't reply to Will's last question. Please don't state "unresolved disagreements" without a proper argumentation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Read above, is that simple. Unless you are now the judge for which argument is "winining", which I don't think you are, there is no agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please resume your argument then. As far as I can see all your concerns were answered by Will, and you didn't answer his last question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, either there's an intelligent response to Will's arguments above, either the discussion has died out, and hence is moot, and there's consensus for the change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, you are more than welcome to create a proposal on a new proposals page. Let me get a button up for it, and make it easier. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Think it a bit over the top to create a 5th proposals page for this:

Undo this edit

Also, nobody seems to think there's still anything to add to what has been said here — but please, if you do, come forward.
I objected to fragmentation of discussion multiple times, same here: if however anyone feels substantial new additions to the analysis of this edit may be made: feel free of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Undo this edit, because "but Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission" is an exceptional claim: all authors (including Melton 1982) see a status quo at best for the Mission in the affected period, and maybe a very partial recuperation of what had gone lost shortly before, but no "progress" of the Mission: no extraordinary evidence is presented to support the exceptional claim.

Above no further reliable sources providing support for this exceptional claim have been provided, so WP:REDFLAG still applies and I assume everyone agrees by now that this claim should not be attached there. The extensive discussion of the evolution of the mission is in Prem Rawat#Reception, and even there nobody sees the need to cover all bases (see e.g. discussion below #Full-time membership of German premies), so why should we describe the most exceptional claim in this context? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see this an "exceptional claim", it is an opinion of a scholar, and can be easily attributed and placed in the appropriate verb as argued at the top of this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tx for resuming your argument.
Re. "it is an opinion of a scholar" - all other scholars, even Melton himself, contradict it. Thus exceptional.
Re. "can be easily attributed and placed in the appropriate verb as argued at the top of this section." - irrelevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for providing your opinion. Please point out where in the policy pages it is explained that a claim made by a scholar and that is not made by other scholars is an "exceptional claim" or a red flag. If your argume t s basded on claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view, please provide sources that present a contradiction to these words by Melton, and without engaging in OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism: section content

(content of this talk page section moved back to active talk 05:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

To replace the current content in the lead paragraph, which is on this proposal page here, with the content in this proposal. Consensus for this proposal is on this discussion page. Additionally, replacing the content which is here, with this. Consensus for this proposal is on this page, and myself being the mediator of this dispute, I feel that both proposals have consensus, therfore I request the edits be made. Thanks, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your handling of the Prem Rawat mediation. To announce an intention to choose and insert a proposal on the Prem Rawat talk page and to make that change less than 30 minutes later is outrageous. This is isn't a race. Important changes must be clearly notified to all involved and ample time given for a response to your proposed change. As for your edit summary of "consensus", 11 editors signed on for your mediation on the Prem Rawat talk page. Only one WillBeBack commented on your proposal on that page.Momento (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to offer an alternate proposal. I didn't decide on a proposal. I was left a note on my talk page, the fact that the proposal had been worked on with a few other editors, who were participating in the proposals process, I feel that I gave plenty of time to allow for either alternate proposals, or discussion, on the talk page. Objections were only raised after the proposal was implemented. I also feel this is a case of silent consensus, and that if a reasonable time is given, and that no objections are made, or no alternatives are offered, that there is consensus for an edit. I'll have the edit undone, however in future, participate more actively in the dispute, and offer alternatives. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing makes consensus difficult to determine. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My thanks also for your prompt response.Momento (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls

!Voting is evil - Straw polls are not a replacement for active participation in debates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Voting isn't evil. Voting is a tool - counterpoint. Straw polls can be a useful adjunct to active participation in debates. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please see this. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I've spotted this on my watchlist, as I've watchlisted all the articles in the mediation. As requested before, and while I can't directly impose it, I would prefer that consensus be sought before making controversial edits. If need be, add them to the list on the MedCab case. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission#Proposed addition to #Issues to be Mediated. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine with me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a good faith edit by an uninvolved editors is being summarily deleted? [10]. Not acceptable, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Your revert prior to talk page discussion was not the right response, anyway. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Your revert prior to discussing the merit of that edit, which BTW, has already been challenged by others, is what is at fault here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that violating 3RR here, is a serious issue. I cannot impose anything on this article, though I strongly urge editors to discuss changes before making them. Additionally, constant reversion of material is a very serious issue. Please, all, be careful. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a response to the talk page discussion as I see it. After monitoring this discussion, it seems to be getting rather heated. I think it's best I make my suggestion clear. This, and the other articles in this mediation, are under dispute. In my experience as a mediator, when dealing with contentious topics, I tend to advise working towards consensus when editing. Looking over this discussion, and the recent article history, I would strongly urge that edits achieve a consensus before they are made, except standard edits such as copyediting, changing words, etc. Contentious portions of the article, and editing portions that are under mediation, would be best for consensus to be achieved here. If necessary, I'll mediate side issues on the talk page as well, it's something I have done before, and I see no reason why it can't be done here. Also remember that the article is under Article probation. It's in the editors best interests here to attempt to reach a consensus before making changes that could be disputed. That said, be careful to not violate 3RR or edit war. I'll keep watching the discussion, as always, just keep this in mind. And, in accordance with the protection policy for content disputes, I may have the article protected, if extreme circumstances present themselves. That's not a threat. It's just something that may happen, if things like 3RR violations occur. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Look forward to your assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, now as I see it, there are several articles under mediation, as listed on the case page. I wonder, can a full list of issues, split up by article, be put into, say, a wikitable, on the case page? That way, we are clear on what article is being referred to, when an issue is mentioned. And all parties, don't be too hesitant to add an issue to the list of matters to be mediated. I'm in this mediation for the long run, whether it takes six weeks or six months, I'll continue mediation. Hopefully, it doesn't take 6 months. But, I'll continue to mediate this as long as the issues have been addressed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your approach Steve, and being more organized will be a big help. For the record, I'm not concerned about the amount of time it takes -- this article has been ongoing for four+ years. Thanks for your help. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there are articles that have been heavily edited for longer. It only means that there are strong POVs at play, and that some articles take longer than others to reach stability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of agreement to proposal by mediator

  • Well, as I've seen things, again, changes, have been made without consensus. This includes the removing and addition of content. So, here's what I propose. Let's take a topic, as in, a section of the article, and each of you write up your section on a proposals page. That way, each of you can write your own versions, and then, each version can be discussed, and a compromise can be negotiated. As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here. Consensus isn't also about when everyone agrees, it's when a solution has been made that everyone can live with. Please note, that continued tenacious editing of controversial sections, without consensus, under the terms of the article probation, could have severe consequences, and we all don't want that, do we? :) So, once the first topic has been decided, as to which section the content is under dispute, I can create a proposals page for it. What say you all? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but no gaming the system please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC) - updated 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that changes should not be made without consensus, and I agree that consensus means content that everyone can live with. I do not have the time or will to write my own versions of each section of content although I am happy to comment on others' versions as time allows. --John Brauns (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, time permitting for writing of each version. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Momento (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, missed this section in the swirling maelstrom (another mael? also not funny I bet...) of comments on these pages, sorry for the delay. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, though I'd like to say in advance that consensus also doesn't mean unanimity, in the event of a pernicious hold-out (or two) Mael-Num (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But I also strongly oppose to possible knee-jerk reverts without giving serious reason other than "you have no consensus" which basically means "I don't like your haircut". I've seen this in some articles. Mukadderat (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree tooPatW (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you say: "For the record ... consensus does not mean unanimity, neither majority". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Would you care to explain this attempt of yours to re-define the word's meaning as regards majority? It appears to fly in the face of all dictionary definitions I'm familiar with! Revera (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some editors that have yet to agree or disagree to the mediator's suggestion: User:Mael-Num, User:Maelefique, and User:Rumiton. It would be useful to know their decision on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the other parties that haven't either accepted or rejected the idea, please do so?. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a reminder in these editor's talk pages? It would be useful to know if there is such an agreement in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting to invite User:Mukadderat too. If nobody objects, or beats me to posting such invitation, I'll add a notice to this effect to this user's page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mukadderat#Invitation --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

Now that active editors have declared their intention to abide by Steve's proposal, do we need to keep the article protected? I would argue that having the article unprotected would allow an easier way to add agreed content via the Proposals pages, as well as continuing doing the wkignoming such as Francis' corrections of references, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see any urgency to unprotect. Last time we protected it too soon. While there is an agreement not to edit war, we don't want to have to keep calling on mediators or admins to enforce it. As for the wikignome edits to the mirrored version, if there are no objections I sggest that they be copied into the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I see no urgency to unprotect the page. I made a mirrored copy of the article, specifically so edits could be made to it, where the arbcom probation didn't actually apply. My main reason for protection was that editors were edit warring/making edits with no consensus, and this was leading to blocks from AE. These blocks stall the mediation, which as we all know, won't be a brief one, it will probably last a month, probably longer. An unprotection at this time, I feel may not be in the best interests of the mediation, not yet anyway. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update proposed

{{editprotected}} Anyone having any problem w.r.t. having this series of updates I applied to the test page, being brought over to the Rawat article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for fixing those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Happy‑melon 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed update #2: 1972 Hans Jayanti and grouping of Downton refs

I prepared a second series of updates on the test page. This series has two components:

  • Relating to User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 (1972 Hans Jayanti in India and the customs incident), where I inserted the version of the text now in User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 8. That version avoids some issues currently without consensus at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1, but I go from the assumption that everyone will agree that the intermediate version I used is at least an improvement over the current version of that paragraph in the Prem Rawat article. If agreement on the other points regarding Proposal1 is reached, of course they can be inserted in future versions.
  • Grouping the Downton refs. All verbatim quotes from Downton's book have been moved to Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Downton (please click that link and see if you can add some more page numbers for those quotes, in order to make the Downton refs even more consistent). I tried to maximise ref re-use, getting rid of approx 4000k of ref text.

Unless someone objects I suggest to update the Prem Rawat article with these changes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus - unanimity

Jossi, you say: "For the record ... consensus does not mean unanimity, neither majority". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Would you care to explain this attempt of yours to re-define the word's meaning as regards majority? It appears to fly in the face of all dictionary definitions I'm familiar with! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Consensus: In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

Given the agreement of all active editors at #Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator not to make edits without consensus, the fact that progress is being made in the mediation Proposal pages, as well as the fact that this article is under probation, I don't see any reason for keeping this article protected. I know that there are comments above about "no urgency to unprotect", but that is not the point; Per WP:PROTECT, protection should only be temporary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative note: Unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal6

To discuss and seek consensus for the lead of section Prem Rawat#Reception.

User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal6

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

References

  • Aagaard, Johannes, "Who Is Who In Guruism?" (1980), in Update, Vol. 4.3, October 1980

I can't find any journal called Update. Is this correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo edit [11]. The date is verified by following the link to Commons [12]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Commons is not a reliable source. Cagan, who isn't especially reliable either, says that the photo is from 1972. Since there's a dispute over the date it's better to just omit it. Also note that the material has been tagged since May 22.[13] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was protected for a while... We could use what Cagan says: "Maharaji is interviewed by the media upon arrival at Los Angeles Airport in 1972" and attribute it to that book in the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Cagan disagrees with the source of the photo, and we've agreed not to use her for disputed material. I don't see anything wrong with the simple, undisputed caption, "Prem Rawat at the Los Angeles Airport". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I would argue that doing small edits and corrections is permissible under our agreement above, but doing substantial edits such as this] it would be better discussed in talk first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, what is your comment on the edit? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem and you keep editing without asking for consensus first via a proposal page? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the agreement which you comitted to abide by #Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator. I have requested from the mediator to comment and intervene. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't seen your comment here until after the next edit.
Content-wise, what are your thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jossi pointed me here from my talk page. Now, read over this again and be clear on it. Specifically, "As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here". The question is, are the recent edits controversial? If so, then they should probably be reverted. This was the reason the article was protected, but, well, let's just have the current issue discussed here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that the edits are undone and discussed first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Francis abdicating his commitment? If that is not the case, he should do the right thing and self-revert. I would hate to see this article protected again, now that progress is being made at the mediation proposals pages ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy with the content of some of your edits, Francis, they are certainly contentious. And especially not with their being posted undiscussed. They mostly do not improve the article and I am surprised at you. I also agree that self-reversion is the way to go. Rumiton (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Deleting sourced material about ex-premies illegal activities. If Francis's edits are allowed to remain despite lack of discussion and zero consensus then I guess I misunderstood the rules here.Momento (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're the first person to actually object to the content. FWIW, Francis says his edit was based on a number of threads. Anyway, as for the edits themselves, do we have sufficiently high-quality sources to allege illegal activity? BLP applies to ex-primies too. Cagan certainly isn't good enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Before we get into another discussion Will, you reverted this edit of mine for "no consensus", perhaps you can apply the same rules to Francis. [14],Momento (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, some of Francis' edit was to remove material that Momento added without discusson or consensus.[15] But let's move forward rather than looking backward. Is there a reliable source for the material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to revert Francis like you reverted me or not?Momento (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If reverting means adding back unconsensed, poorly sourced derogatory material then of course I won't. Note that Jossi has made a partial revert. All that leaves is the material from Collier. Do you have a complaint about that material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not made a "partial revert", no material was deleted by me, hope you take that back straight away. Only a change of section name. What will be very pertinent would be to know if you would apply the same standards to Francis edit, as you did to Momento's. Did you have any complaints about Momento's edit? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC
I was referring to the section name change. I'm not sure what you're asking of me. As for Momento's edit of several weeks ago, yes, we discussed it at length. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Not so quickly. My request is for you to substantiate what seems at first glance to be double-standards as it pertains to challenging edits that have not been discussed or reached consensus. I look forward to a response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am only pressing this point because you have characterized yourself recently as a "neutral and uninvolved editor", otherwise I would not be pressing this point. Still looking forward to a response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

MacGregor revisited

I am preparing verbatim material from an affidavit made by John Macgregor available from the Supreme Court of Queensland file #59538/03 as per [16] and mentioned in Cagan's book page 283. Since it is a real case with a legal judgement, unlike Rawat's "customs incident" which warranted 8 lines in this article, I'm sure editors will agree this sworn testimony deserves far more material.Momento (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime I am removing the link inserted with "no consensus" as per discussion [17].Momento (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not insert purported affadavits as sources into this article. I strongly object. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What is purported about it? It's all there in black and white.Momento (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol! "Purported affidavit"? Does Will Beback really believe that the affidavit is not real? You can write to the SCQ and ask for a copy. Having said that, two wrongs do not make a right. If Francis wants to act out of consensus, let that be on the record, but let's not allow that behavior detract from the current mediation by editors taking the bait and extend the dispute by acting in the same manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that legal affadavits are suitable sources for any living person. (Take a look at what goes into affadavits in divorrce cases.) This particular document was apparently obtained and filed under questionable circumstances. If Momento and Jossi want to insert negative information about their opponents there is the reliably-reported incident of the guy in the truck trying to force his way in. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What questionable circumstances? Any sources for that assertion? And why are you taking about "Momento and Jossi want to insert negative information about their opponents"? Are you threatening with some kind of retaliation? And lastly, do you want to give all the hard work up and start edit warring with Momento? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe we are having this discussion about Macgregor's affidavit yet again. OK, the reasons the afidavit is a poor source are that the document does not show a verifiable notary, it was submitted to the court in Australia 18 months after the case had closed so was not tested in that case, and Jossi's lawyer used it in a libel case in California where the judge rejected Jossi's lawyer's argument based on that affidavit. Can Jossi and friends please accept these facts and move on? --John Brauns (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments do not make a dent. Maybe is about time you move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I would like to assume good faith in your intentions here, but you have made no effort to explain why these arguments do not 'make a dent' with you. Please explain why the lack of a notary for the affidavit doesn't make a dent. Explain why the fact the affidavit was submitted to the court 18 MONTHS after the case was closed does not make a dent, and explain why the fact that your lawyer failed in her use of the affidavit, to make a dent in the Ca libel case, does not make a dent. In other words, please use reasoned discussion to argue your case rather than using insubstantive phrases like 'make a dent'. --John Brauns (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer now? (a) Affidavits do not have to be notarized to be sumbitted; (b) the date of filing is inconsequential; (c) The lawyer for that defense of that case, presented the affidavit which was not accepted because it was filed in Australia and not under the jurisdiction of a California case; (d) the fact that the lawyer for the defense also represented me as a third party, is inconsequential. Hence, your arguments do not make a dent on the validity and verifiability of that document and its content. The only insubstantive(sic) thing here are your own arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm sure you will agree that comments such as 'Are you a lawyer now? are inappropriate here. But yes, I do know a little about the law. The purpose of an affidavit being notarised is to establish independently the author's identity. Without notarisation, the authorship of this affidavit is in doubt, so we cannot be sure that John Macgregor wrote the affidavit. Also, your glib dismissal of the extraordinary fact of the affidavit being submitted to the court 18 months after the case had been closed is not a good counter to my argument that the affidavit had not been tested in that particular case. Could other editors please comment here? To me this is so crystal clear I am surprised Jossi is trying to support the affidavit's inclusion, but I admit to bias as I know the content of the affidavit is false - do any independent editors see any merit in Jossi's argument for inclusion of the affidavit as a reliable source? --John Brauns (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

<<<Prior discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Macgregor. At the time I proposed to stop the discussion, as we were moving towards a possible BLP on Jossi (apart from those on Rawat and MacGregor). Well, what to say if Jossi insists on raising his points on the issue again? Paraphrasing John: "Can [we] move on?" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Moving on" means making proposals in the pages set forth for this purpose. And yes, the discussions about the source used that prompted a discussion about the affidavit, will re-surface again in these proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex-premie.org revisited

Discussed at length does not mean that there is consensus for that material. If that would be the case, several of the current proposals in progress should have been made weeks ago. There is no consensus for that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct Jossi. Here's the "discussion" Will had about adding the material and my very clear objection -

It doesn't make sense to wait for the article to stabilize before making changes to it. As long as we proceed towards better articles then threats of WP:AE are unneccessary. If editors get into revert wars over material then WP:AE may be required. Mediation is not a reason to stop editing. As for the topic at hand, do you have a specific reason to object to moving the material in "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members" to this article, and then redirecting "Criticism of Prem Rawat" here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If there's no specific objection I'll do that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I object. To any links prohibited by BLP and EL policy.Momento (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I specifically objected to including the link in question. Please self revert Will.Momento (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to your making this contentious edits. Please stick with the mediation process. After all that complaining about Francis what you've done is more disruptive. This is very unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, after all the complaining from many editors about Francis's unilateral, undiscussed, no consensus deleting of material, you didn't object. On the contrary, you supported his action saying "Francis' edit was to remove material that Momento added without discusson or consensus" "But let's move forward rather than looking backward". Now I have removed material that was "added without discusson or consensus" (see above) and you find it "contentious". I suggest you "move forward rather than looking backward".Momento (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this would probably work:

A website started in 1996 utilizes the term, www.ex-premie.org.[1][2]

The people who will do better are those that read and understand BLP and EL policies.Momento (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The extensive prior discussion referred to by Will (Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Ex-Premie.Org, Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Ex-premie: connotations, etc) did not demonstrate a WP:BLP and/or WP:EL problem, despite your claims that you truly understand these pages, unlike your opponents. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's brouhaha

That discussion was not completed, and that edit does still have no consensus. And I find it amazing that you have the chutzpah to talk about WP:POINT, after what you did yesterday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your reputation as a Wikipedia editor is reflected in your edits and interactions, same as we all are. For an editor that chose to act out of consensus, by arguing acting in a way that shows an understanding that informal mediation is just informal and not binding, I would argue that your assessment about other editors should be taken in that context. If you feel that I am uncivil, you are welcome to pursue a complaint through a suitable noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you sign with "sure" on the proposal by the mediator to not add or remove material without consensus, yes, or no? Did you act out of consensus with the edit that started all this brouhaha, yes, or no? Did you reject suggestions by several editors to self-revert and discuss, yes or no? Simple questions, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have slightly refactored my comment. Now, please consider answer my questions that are quite straight forward. Did you or did you not act as I described it? These are not "baseless diversions" but simple and straightforward questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your reluctance to answer the simple questions I posed, is noted. We could have wrapped this up very rapidly if you had. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not cross-examining you, I am asking pertinent questions. As for your answers (a) Yes you agreed not to edit without discussion and consensus, good. (b) Your second answer is a non answer, and clearly you did edited out of consensus and in abdication of your commitment not to do so; (c) Your third answer, well, you could have partially self-reverted but you did not. Look, you may think this is a "diversion", but it is clearly not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically, had you not made that edit out of consensus, we could have been using all this time to continue collaborating in proposal pages. Instead, all this brouhaha, including a mini edit war, has ensued. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think everyone here needs to step away from the PC for half an hour, have a cup of tea (or whatever you prefer), and calm down. This discussion is starting to turn ugly. Come back in half an hour, and I'll hold a proper, structured, hopefully constructive discussion, on a subpage, where specific topics, questions, and comments will be asked. We will see what that can produce, I see me just watching the discussion will not be enough, so we have to do this another way. I'd ask everyone have a half hour break, come back at 22:00 UTC. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for your timely intervention. I will resume later this evening. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
These are not personal attacks, and even if they were, pls read Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Removal_of_text. You can contact an uninvolved admin to assess if these are personal attacks that need to be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have discussed with an adminstrator about the removal, or commenting out, of Jossi's comments, and they noted that doing so were not acceptable. While Jossi's comments could have been worded in a better fashion, possibly more civil fashion, as far as I can judge, they do not appear to be personal attacks, nor the severity that would require them being removed. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6

We've agreed to let the mediator decide what has consensus or not. If you want to start a proposal to discuss removal of the material then feel free. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Proposal is already at Proposal6. We will get there sooner or later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism: section content

Now that it seems we have serious arguments that this section is valid, let me return to the point I was tried to address earlier. Please allow me to speak longer, since nobody seem to get the idea.

It is a common observation that sections of this kind are prone to become coatrack magnets to collect various blurbs from all possible people. While opinions of notable people are certainly valued, collecting them is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. To prevent this, the section must be organized by topics, not just a list of cited opinions. The cited opinions must go as references to topics, not as standalone items.

To this end I suggest to start with the following broad topics / subsections:

  • Criticism of Prem Rawat's teachings and opinions
    (if teachings are in separate articles, then their criticism must go there, with a wikilink from here - mkdrt)
  • Criticism of Prem Rawat's actions
  • Criticism of Prem Rawat's personality (not sure if any)
  • Ex-followers' reasoning
    (While they may be sorted into the above, IMO their status as "ex" gives a rize to a separate subsection, especially if there are scholarly discussions about 'exes'.- mkdrt)

An example of bad content (copied from earlier versions of criticism): "He asserted that Rawat stimulated an uncritical attitude of the students' view of the guru and their projections on him". This sentence has no hints to proofs why "he asserted" this. Opinions without arguments (even if cited from notable persons) are nothing but badmouthing.

Please discuss this issue in this section. If you want to discuss anything else, please start a separate section, in order to avoid chaotic chat. Mukadderat (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick to a level ==...== section titled "Reception", all subtopics of ===...=== level:
  • "Following"
  • "Media", possibly "Media attention"
  • "Leadership appreciation" (new proposal for what we're elaborating in #Proposed expansion to material about charismatic authority - anyway the sociological aspects)
  • "Rawat and his students" (the psychological material, currently one paragraph based on Schnabel/VdLans, but this should develop into more approaches imho - I've seen some sources that might qualify)
  • "Criticism by former followers" ("criticism" is the only aspect re. "Reception" by former followers for which we have RSs)
I'm doubtful whether there'd be sufficient RS material for a separate section on "Reception" by general Anti-Cult groups (but if there is such RS material, we shouldn't ignore it either of course)
I'd like to draw attention to the section title being "Reception", subtopics should be aspects of "Reception" (unless we change the "Reception" section title which I would not favour at all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Reception is the best word IMO. And a "media coverage" section could and should also include scholars' published comments on the media coverage there has been. Jayen466 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to subsection "Media" or "Reception". It is like "Trivia" or "In popular culture" only to collect citations. Once again, an encyclopedia article must be focused and centered on topics, not opinions or citations. Mukadderat (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Mukadderat makes some good points. I disagree with the last. The subject received intense media coverage for a decade, and reliable sources have commented on that coverage. I don't think that we should include mere mentions - those are more likely to be used as sources. But we should describe how the subject was covered in the media, and more broadly how he was received by the public. I don't see anything trivial about that material. As for the rest, rather than title the sections "criticism of..." why not just omit that part and call them "Prem Rawat's teachings and opinions", "Prem Rawat's actions", "Prem Rawat's personality", etc.? I'm sure we'd want to include the full range of views on those topics, not just criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with your interpretation of the item "media coverage". Yes, a general description of how it was covered makes sense. Mukadderat (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At this stage of the debate, I am sure that there would be a variety of editor's opinion about how to construct the Reception section. Note that many of the viewpoints are covered in the biographical chronology as appropriate, so segregating viewpoints based on their nature may be not the best of these ideas. Proposals about the structure and content of that section can be pursued via the mediation proposals pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't confuse the notions of "criticism" and "(critical) viewpoint". My whole point is that we don't have to segregate "viewpoints" in some kind of list at all. Someone's "viewpoints" must serve only as refererences to criticism of particular issues related to Prem Rawat.Mukadderat (talk)
    • At this and that stages of the debate I am sure that Rawat's followers will be happy to remove any traces of criticism of their spiritual leader, and it is only human. But I am sure that many others will agree that this kind of pressure to remove valid encyclopedic content must not be tolerated in wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A very pompous, divisive and unhelpful comment, Mukadderat, not to mention uncivil. Please don't indulge yourself any further in this way. There are people here who have a very positive view of Prem Rawat, and there are others with a very negative view. No one has a monopoly on the truth. A lot of cooperation is needed to get this article to comply with all the rules of Wikipedia and tell the story in a way we can all live with. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain in a non-pompous and helpful way how come that a very positive view is in the article, while a very negative view was almost completely eliminated. Please explain in what way it may be re-introduced. Mukadderat (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am happy to discuss this, but you are starting from a wrong premiss. This article contains quite a lot of negative comment on Prem Rawat. His lifestyle is described as "sumptuous" and "opulent." Statements by his students are characterised as "a confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas." His name is connected to the Rev Jim Jones. The words "a fat 15 year-old with pie in his face" appear. It is said that his charisma "is the result of careful staging." These things, to me, are petty and subjective, more like spiteful insults than criticisms. I would like to see some serious analysis, perhaps looking into the appropriateness of the western ashram lifestyle he set up, his acceptance of words like "divine" and the confusion and problems they created, the role and image of the master in spiritual growth. Most scholarly sources wrote positively or neutrally about Prem Rawat and his western movement. The lurid stuff is mostly from religiously connected authors writing for the conviction of their congregations, or from journalists intending to amuse, not expecting to become a reference for an encyclopedia article 35 years later. You might wish to look at WP:BLP for some good advice on how to evaluate sources for acceptability in a living biography. If you wish to accept the challenge and help us to work within the letter and spirit of Wikipedia to create an intelligent and informative article then you are most welcome. We don't need any superheroes battling against bigotry for truth and justice (we have enough of them.) Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Mukadderat, please do not refactor my or anyone else's contributions to talk pages. I wrote "premiss" and that was what I meant. Please look the word up if you don't know the meaning. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Wow, you think that's the lurid stuff? It's interesting you take some of these relatively mild comments more as spiteful insults than criticism. Personally I think that when someone says his charisma is 'the result of careful staging' (for example), it's simply someone making an innocent observation. Same with 'opulent' and 'sumptuous lifestyle'. Do you think that Rawat didn't or doesn't lead an opulent lifestyle? Is it possible to argue that someone with a gold-plated toilet in their personal jet does not enjoy a little opulence? It's all very fine saying Mukkerdat is 'starting from the wrong premise' but isn't that exactly what you're doing in spades..starting out with the premise that everyone who makes a comment about Rawat that isn't flattering is out to get him? I do agree that serious analysis of of the whole thing would be good. I think we have some past serious analysis though. What is lacking is fresh thought.PatW (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • For starters I would suggest Rumiton do not put your words in my mouth. I don't describe Rawat's supporters as bigotry. If you want my personal opinion, all these new religions and guru and teachers and spiritual leaders, are about the money or glory in the first place. And I have nothing against this. There are more than one way to get rich by extracting money from other people, whether they are called "customers" or "disciples". Second, where do I see acting superhero battling for truth? This is a wild exagerration. I merely observe that the whole huge article Criticism of Prem Rawat disappeared. I don't even try to reinstall it and anything from it. I guess you have become overly oversensitive. If I were following your line of behavior I would have started slapping fat tags on your talk pages for calling me "superhero" (air quotes can be read between lines) and calling my comments pompous. Mukadderat (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • As for "wrong premises", I don't think "fat 15-year boy" is a valid criticism. I already wrote somewhere above that these kinds of remarks are mere badmouthing, not criticism and I may add that they more negatively speak about the critic than of Rawat. Just the same, I don't see why "sumptious lifestyle" is bad. IMO, the intro phrase " Rawat has been criticized <...> for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" is stupid, and I may explain why, if you don't see it and you ask me to. My premise, I am repeating this for fourth time in this talk page, is that most "criticism" in this article is non-argumentative, just a random collection of cited badmouthing. And my suggestion was to start a systematic, reasonably argumented section on criticism. For example answer me why "sumptuous lifestyle" is something to be criticized? AFAIK at least 5% of population enjoy sumptuous L-style, and moreover, from the POV of a remote village in Molvania or Zamunda 85% of people are filthy rich. So what? Hint: Does Rawat preach asceticism for everyone else? Mukadderat (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mukadderat, I have had some problems figuring out your meaning, but I think I am getting closer. I apologise if I have misunderstood you. I agree entirely with your above, as I understand it. I have no problem with the article stating that Prem Rawat is a high net worth individual, or some similarly neutral description of wealth. This is obviously true. But the word "sumptuous" is almost always used pejoratively. My dictionary (the Concise Oxford) gives its meaning as "suggesting lavish (recklessly wasteful) expenditure." This is not an encyclopedic adjective, in my opinion. Thank you for your involvement. Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Boing 707+Gold-plated toilet+Malibu Hiltop mansion residence with helipad+Helicopters+Expensive Yacht+dozens of top-range and classic cars+now GulfStream Jet+chauffeur driven+large staff in constant worshipful attendance+most expensive suits+most expensive everything=Sumptuous lifestyle. The guy was simply right to call it that and you want to change his meaning which I think is wrong. What, I ask, is wrong with reporting that people (like the journalist) judged him 'pejoratively'? Surely his intent if negative was the reality not whatever 'neutral' phrasing Ruminton is proposing. PatW (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And Mukkerdat- Yes Rawat did advocate a life of renunciation. His renunciate order was called the Ashram and I was a member myself. And yes, if the word 'sumptuous' was intended 'pejoratively' then the perceived hypocrisy of someone not practising what they preached was absolutely the reason. I am sure that there are plenty of sources who mention this perceived hypocrisy. I'll go take a look. Anyway there is your argument that explains that particular bit of bad-mouthing. PatW (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I have to agree with Jossi’s most recent point and concur that we should just ignore comments not directly related to improving the article, as the expression of personal opinions are getting us nowhere and are generating too much incivility.
However, having said that, I believe that it is entirely within scope of this debate to discuss Rumiton’s point, purely from point of what should be in the article, and the sources required. This is what PatW has done.
As Pat points out, Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle is a matter of fact, and a matter of biographical notability. Where we need to find consensus is on what defines a fair weighting for this point, and what the acceptable sources to be used are.
What is not acceptable is what I refer to as the ‘intellectual high ground’ argument; that we can’t write in any detail about Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle because we don’t have suitable reference material from academic sources. The reality is that most of the referenced academics didn’t write about this topic, because they weren’t biographers; they were focused on the particular subject of their books and papers.
The need for neutrality trumps any insistence on only the highest levels of academia for sources. As has been pointed out many times in this debate, many ‘popular’ magazines and other related material qualify as reliable, 3rd party sources. Yes, I agree with Jossi’s argument that we should always use the best sources available, but if we don’t have any scholarly, academic material available to provide details of Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle in order to balance the article, then we need to accept the highest level of reliable, 3rd party sources that we can find that do discuss Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You have used the word "sumptuous" twice in one sentence. Please see my comment to Mukadderat above. Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Rumiton: I simply used the word that has been in the existing article for a while, as an attempt to avoid controversy whilst explaining my reasoning. I will ignore further personal comments aimed at the editors and not directly at improving the article. The wording to be used in the article will be dependent on the sources quoted, not our use of words here. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not see a problem in describing such aspects, if, of course, the material is good and usable. Journalists make mistakes, as in this gem from The Guardian: The object of Cainer's veneration is the Guru Maharaj Ji, who came to the west as a tubby 13-year-old in the early 1970s and persuaded thousands of ex-hippies to join his Divine Light Mission. Such was his appeal that by the end of the decade he owned 93 Rolls-Royces and had run up a $4m bill for back-taxes. In those days the guru described himself as the Lord of the Universe and the Exploding Love-Bomb., which was published in 1999 with a photo of someone else. A few days later the newspaper published this: In an item headed The Mail man, the Maharaji and the exploding love bomb, page 5, G2, July 14, we said Guru Maharaj Ji (or Maharaji) once owned 93 Rolls Royces and had run up a bill in unpaid tax of $4m. Those statements were incorrect and referred to a different guru, unconnected with Maharaji. We were also wrong to say Maharaji had described himself as the Exploding Love Bomb. The photograph used to illustrate the piece showed the wrong person, again unconnected with Maharaji So, I would want to see what sources we will be using for such descriptions, and if there is some kind of consensus of sources for the material before making an attempt to include it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Shall we ask Steve to create a 6th proposal page for this subject, where proposed references can be discussed in the reference section? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Prem Rawat does live a sumptuous or opulent life and it would be remiss to leave it out of this article. It's a major part of the controversy and criticism of him that started with his own mother during the family split. He's been criticized for it in the media all of his life. He came to the west with no money. His lifestyle is most definitely sumptuous and opulent, especially for someone like him who went no farther than the 8th grad, and who has never worked a job in his life. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see you are passionate about this. Can you help improve the article by finding reliable, 3rd party sources related to your claims that we can include in the article? Also, though I am not am not an expert in this subject, I doubt that reliable sources have stated that Rawat 'never worked a day in his life'. I suggest you redact that comment as without a reference it could be considered an offensive and insulting personal comment. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be construed as offensive or insulting. I was stating the facts. Rawat left India at age 13 (1971) and never returned to St. Joseph's school there against his mother's wishes --he was in the 8th grade at the time. After his marriage in 1974, his $400,000 Malibu estate (a lot of money in 1974) was purchased for him by DLM (his followers). This information is sourced within the article as it stands today. Rawat's wealth (opulence) has been mentioned many, many times in the mainstream media as a criticism of his lifestyle. Hope that clarifies. Btw, I wasn't feeling passionate or anything else when I wrote the above -- pls. try not to read emotion into other people's posts. Thanks.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychology

Psychology: What is the context of writing the psychology? "the divine nature of the guru is a standard element of Eastern religion, but removed from its cultural context, and confounded with the Western understanding of God as a father, what is lost is the difference between the guru's person and that which the guru symbolizes—resulting in what they refer as limitless personality worship."

Do we over emphasize in this content; persuading the readers, not to listen/follow to him? I guess criticism is good, but in not good taste in this para. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflated two sections into one, as the material in these two sections are intrinsically related. The edit you refer to was done out of consensus and needs to be discussed. I add my argument alongside yours that the material from Schnabel is two extensive, lacking other viewpoints for balance. As this was done as a de facto edit, and the user that added that text does not want to self-revert and discuss as agreed, I am not sure what is the best way to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The purpose is to (a) develop consensus about the material that was added to a new section named arbitrarily "Psychology", in blatant violation of the agreed process as well as violating WP:OR. 'without any discussion, and (b) to develop a section in which critical viewpoints can be presented neutrally, and that does not mean just "criticism". I created Proposal6 for this purpose.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If Proposal 6 will address the topic then that's OK, given the circumstances. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
By the look of it, some editors believe that this article can carry extensive citations from two Dutch scholars, at the expense of other scholars. I will be arguing about the undue weight given to these two (Lans and Scnabel that quotes Lans in a somewhat perverse circular reference), at the expense of other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Above I had proposed this title for the section: "Rawat and his students" (the psychological material, currently one paragraph based on Schnabel/VdLans, but this should develop into more approaches imho - I've seen some sources that might qualify) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding 21,000 characters from an archive so that you can write "above I had propose"? Please stop the nonsense. You can simply use a wikilink to the archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"Without any discussion" or "21,000 characters"? – please make up your mind.
For the record,
Well, anyone can make an error. No offense taken. But please see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Civility Issues, and similar calls to civility by Steve and others. Your "Please stop the nonsense" above seems like an appeal to mildly over the hill language to divert attention from a minor error on your part. Let's close the incident.
As for proposal6 (taking account of Will's remarks on its talk page too), I'd recommend:
  • To concentrate the proposal on the structure of the ==Reception== section, and defer content of the subsections to other proposal pages if needed (proposal2 is currently one of them).
  • Take into account prior discussion on the subject, like the one above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to pursue that idea in a separate proposal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussing a structure without the content is useless. Once we have text, the sections will be naturally derived. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I was going to make a suggestion about agreeing on an outline first, then work on the individual sections. Jossi's proposal 6 would requires us to agree on the structure and the contents all at once. I think it's unwieldy to try to edit a large section all at once, when we haven't even agree on what the subsections should be. If we agree on the structure first, then work on the subsections, we can always change the structure again if need be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your disagreement is noted, and nobody is stopping you from pursuing a conversation about structure. You can user the Proposal 6 page for that it you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Subsection headers with current content (proposal)

I'm not discouraging that the content be worked on, expanded, trimmed, rearranged, or improved in whatever way or negotiated in whatever appropriate place, with future consensus for other subsection headers (on the contrary, and I'd play an active role there too!), but here's my proposal, for the time being, with the current content and arrangement:

==Reception==

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to think about the structure and scope of this section before detailing the content, and have said so on the discussion page here: [18]. I suggest to continue this discussion there to avoid fragmentation of the debate.Savlonn (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied the proposal to User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6#Structure --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated material

Coming of age section: Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM in the United States and former president of the business side of the mission, and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, voiced their criticism in a press conference,[citation needed] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.[74]

Critical viewpoint section: When former officials of Rawat's organisations voiced their criticism in the aftermath of the Jonestown drama in the late 1970s they didn't limit themselves to the movement, but included its leader in their comments,[74] for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17]

One of these need to go and material trimmed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New stats

Just noticed some new info on the Keys website. [[19]] As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years. The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period. If there is no objection, I will add this data to the article. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the connection to the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, is that page publicly accessible? It seems to require registration. How do we register? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you want to make a significant addition, you should create a proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The connection to the subject? Really? In 2005, Rawat introduced The Keys, a set of five DVD's which prepare the student for receiving Knowledge, as well as a sixth Key which is a DVD presentation of Rawat giving the Knowledge. It is publically accessible. Just click on the link (though I don't know why a padlock icon appears next to the Wikilink.) OK. How about following the above with "According to the Keys information site, 365,237 people received the Knowledge in 67 countries between the inception of the Keys program and May 2008." I believe that accurately summarizes what the source says. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The padlock appears because it's an HTTPS connection (it indicates a secure connection, like your online banking). I think this info would be better suited to the Teachings page, with a possible minor tweak here once it's done. The info seems too detailed for this page, we really only need a summary of the Teachings page, they can read these numbers over there. Having said that, I also agree with Will, if you're going to change this page at all, let's do it through a new proposal. I don't think any of us need to be jumping around yet another talk page to track what's going on with this article. Things are going well with Steve's proposals sections, we should try and continue with that format. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may consider adding it to the "Following" section in User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you all, I take that all on board. I certainly don't want to subvert the process Steve has underway, but I think this new information has an intrinsic significance. There has been a steady drizzle of talk here along the lines of "It's all over for him", "He's yesterday's man", "The most notable thing he ever did was 34 years ago when he bought a house in Malibu and had to negotiate with the Los Angeles Fire Departmant" (OK, I'm paraphrasing and exaggerating a bit.) These figures point up the fact that the most recent efforts he has made to spread the Knowledge taught to him by his father internationally have been way more successful than anything he achieved in the 70s. I look forward to the articles reflecting that. Rumiton (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it go under the category "2000s" In 2005, Rawat introduced The Keys, a set of five DVD's which prepare the student for receiving Knowledge, as well as a sixth Key which is a DVD presentation of Rawat giving the Knowledge Also that this stat might be dynamic, we will need to update it as soon as reflected on the main page referred by you: [[20]]--Taxed123 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 2000s looks the most logical place for it. But a discussion is going on here [[21]] so let's see what the outcome is. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Public Appearances, honors & Awards" talked by "Savlonn" - Do we have the archive somewhere so that we can start collecting and assembing them in chronological order. We can also have this in reverse chronological order (as suitable to living person). Suggestions? --Taxed123 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regular chronological order is standard across Wikipedia. You could create an archive of sources at Talk:Prem Rawat/honors. I'm not sure why "public appearances" should be put in with honors and awards - they seem like different things. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are we discussing this here? The page for these discussions is at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Because there is a discussion over whether the material is beter handled in the chronological part of the bio. Why do you think it's better in the reception section? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No answer? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: revert removal of sourced material

Undo this revert and add this additional source to the recovered sentence: [2] . See Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Ex-premie.org revisited --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta-comments (I)

Parties are discussing what way to go with proposal6, see User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6#Moving forward, due to length and complexity. You even suggested "impasse", and before have suggested more outsider input would be welcomed. RfC is one of the recommended tools for that, and allows to treat topics of limited breadth. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the content of the RfC

  • If that is the approach you suggest, here is my argument for excluding that material: A passing comment about that website does not warrant its mentioning in this article. Per WP:NPOV#UNDUE; will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. WP:RS is a guideline, that needs to be considered in the context of our content policies, thus, a passing mention in a reliable source is no grounds on its own to assert the need to include such material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse restoration of the deleted material. It is properly sourced, and mentioned in a mainstream publication. Jossi is not providing any evidence that it is undue weight, or that it represents the view of a "tiny minority". NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. If this material is kept out then the article should have a "POV" tag pending it's restoration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. :Francis and WillBeback have argued that including the name of a website, "ex-premie.org", in the text rather than the "External Links" section means it isn't a link and is not subject to External Links guidelines or BLP policy. Or that not making it a hyperlink means it isn't a link. It is a link and it is subject to WP:EL and WP:BLP. The arbitration committee have recently decided that "administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy" as per [[22]]. This attempt to circumvent WP:EL and WP:BLP goes against the spirit of both. The site referred to should be avoided as per
    1. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
      What content on ex-premie.org is factually inaccurate or unverifiable??? I have asked Jossi, Derek and every other premie who has complained about my site the same question and instead of answering with specific examples of inaccurate content they keep repeating their mantra. Examples please, guys, or drop the attacks. --John Brauns (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      As the webmaster and owner of that site, your bias toward it is understandable. Your website does not meet any of the conditions described in guidelines and policies, including WP:EL, WP:RS WP:V and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      Guidelines
      • WP:EL Links to avoid:
        • (a) Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
        • (b) In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links
      • WP:RS
        • Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
      Policies
      • WP:V -
        • (a) Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.;
        • (b) In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
      • WP:BLP
        • External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality, and in full compliance with this and other policies and with the external links guideline
        • Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article
      Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      It's not an external link, and it's not being used as a source, so those guidelines and policies don't apply. "Enough said." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      I was responding to John Brauns. My argument for not including that website, is based on the fact, that a passing mention of that website is no grounds for including it. Your strenuous attempts to include that website is only that strenous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      My efforts have not been strenuous at all compared to the very strenuous efforts of pro-Rawat editors to delete any mention of this website from Wikipedia, and to shut it down in cyberspace. How many times have I added it to the article? How many times have you, Rumiton, Momento, and Zappaz removed it? "Strenuous" indeed. But the past really doesn't matter here. What matters is there is no policy reason to delete this sourced, neutral information that's relevant to the subject and that is actually required by the NPOV policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      sourced, neutral information that's relevant to he subject Relevant? How so? It is a passing comment about a website in which the subject of this article is defamed. Not acceptable despite your strenuous efforts to include it. As for the ongoing challenge for not to include this site as a source, I am sure that you agree with that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      Jossi, you are free to argue that my site should not be used as a source for this article, but you and Momento are NOT free to use these talk pages to make unsubstantiated charges of inaccuracy, unverifiability, or defamation. Inaccurate content or questions of unverifiability should be reported to me via my website email address. As the allegations about Rawat have been published for up to 10 years without ANYONE complaining to me of defamation, then your charge of defamation is suspect, and is certainly NOT correct behaviour of a Wikipedia Admin. I suggest you withdraw the allegation, and apologise, and I also suggest you warn Momento about his behaviour if you want to maintain your stance of being unbiased. --John Brauns (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      We spend a lot of space devoted to the number of supporters, so it's relevant to mention that there are also opponents. As for using some website as a source, that's not what this RfC is about. If you want to discuss that then please start another RfC. This RfC is just about whether to revert this edit and add this source. Let's stick to the topic, please. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    2. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
    The site in question fails the above tests.
    WP:EL policy also says -In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.Momento (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The name of a domain is not the same as an external link. Nowhere in any policy that you've linked does it says so. I suggest we post this issue again to the WP:EL talk page to get clarification of this policy issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia talk:External links#Unlinked domain names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Re. "Francis [...] argued [...]" – I didn't, as far as I can remember. What is this? Are we again at filling talk pages with whatever pops up in our mind, not hampered by any prospect of quality of our work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, I never argued the line Momento indicates, are we again at filling talk pages with whatever pops up in our mind, not hampered by any prospect of quality of our work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I now propose that the recovered sentence and its references would read thus:

    A website started in 1996 utilizes the term, ex-premie.org.[3][4][2]

    --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no good. Whether you link or just give the URL, you are directing the reader to a website that exists only to malign the subject of this BLP. No good at all. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Has anybody read WP:EL, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP? By the look of that later proposal, it seems that people here haven't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We've all read those policies, but simply running the alphabet parade doesn't advance the debate. None of those policies prohibit mentioning the name of a world wide web domain. A domain name is not even synonymous with a URL, much less a hyperlink that could be followed easily. We're no more "directing the readers" to the site than we're directing them to the Astrodome by writing its name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
But if we put "astrodome.com" into the text we would be.01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A very poor and strenuous argument, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So far no one has presented an objection that appears relevent to the actual text being proposed. It is not a source and it is not an external link. It is neutrally presented and adequately sourced. NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, and this article is unbalanced so long as it is missing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A passing comment in one newspaper, and another mention in an article about which we have considerable evidence to be extremely dubious, does not help NPOV whatsoever. This simply looks to me as a wikilawyering way to try to introduce a website that otherwise will be totally unacceptable in a BLP. And if you do not like the WP acronyms., I can spell them out in tuto ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a different argument. The point seems to be that two reliable sources aren't sufficient to establisht the notability of something. Is there any question that there is opposition to the subject from former followers? This is a logical way of discussing the opposition based on simple facts found in reliable 3rd party sources. It's not wikilawyering to insist on enforcement of WP:NPOV, and it's not negotiable either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • NPOV is non-negotiable indeed. A passing comment on a newspaper article does not attest to notability of a personal website. Apply NPOV#UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that it's a "personal website" - it appears to be the work of many, and has a forum that gets many responses. If we didn't mention the followers then it'd be les important to mention the ex-followers. But given how much space it devoted to followers, it's important for NPOV to mention the ex-followers as well. Jossi's argument that it's only been mentioned a couple of times would make sense, except that he also argues we shouldn't mention the subject's life of luxury, which has been mentioned in dozens of newspaper articles. In other words, if it's material that may be considered negative there is never enough evidence of notability to include it. I reject that line of argument, which is antithetical to NPOV. A short sentence on the the opposition is not undue weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ex-premie.org is certainly NOT a personal website. As the current owner I have personally contributed not more than an estimated 30 pages out of over 1000, although I have ensured that all serious allegations against Rawat are corroborated. FYI, the current forum, although also owned by me, is independent of the site and previous forums were owned by other former followers. I agree the site should be mentioned. If the opposition to Rawat had written a book or other paper publication that was mentioned by reputable sources, would Jossi have grounds to object to its mention here? A website is just a publication in another form, and as well as being mentioned in the sources quoted, it is also linked from over 4900 pages according to Google, whereas elanvital.org is only linked from 920. BTW, I would appreciate if other editors would request that Jossi withdraw the serious allegation of defamation against me, and that he should apologise. --John Brauns (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Steve Crossin/Prem Rawat#Jossi's unjustified abrasive comments against John Brauns --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Meta-comments (II)

  • Something that I want to point out here. An RFC is generally used to get outside input. As of yet I haven't seen anyone that's not in the dispute, comment on this RFC. I don't know about all of you, but that tells me something about this area of editing, no one seems to want to get involved. Apologies for my recent inactivity, I've been rather unwell, still not feeling 100%. Steve Crossin (contact) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC topic (continued)

I can read the reference tags, my point is that they don't really represent three separate sources about the website. Its a bit of a backdoor to including otherwise excluded criticism, mentioning this site. I have no opinion on Prem Rawat whatsoever, but this site doesn't appear to merit a mention. Thats my opinion, and posting your sources again won't convince me otherwise ;-) Avruch 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, and thanks for it (we were craving for outsider views!). "they don't really represent three separate sources about the website" is however incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article barely mentions the site, and doesn't go into any detail, and the Rocky Mountain News one is behind a pay wall. The third certainly covers the site in more depth, but as I said above I'd prefer to have more than one reliable source attesting to the importance of this particular site in this particular case. Avruch 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There are three reliable sources. If needed we could pass all three of them by WP:RSN, if that contention is doubted.
The Rocky Mountain News article is available here for educational purposes: [23]
The least that could be said about the Guardian article is that it ports an "independent" view re. www.ex-premie.org ("[ex-premies] can be seen licking their wounds at www.ex-premie.org [...]"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Francis forgets to mention the disrepute of one of these "sources", which was basically debunked by its own author in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There are three reliable sources. If needed we could pass all three of them by WP:RSN, if that contention is doubted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have been following this discussion with interest. Francis I think the mention of the website in the six year old Good Weekend article has had its reliability invalidated by a court case and the authors admission of zealotry and apology to Prem Rawat.The author has also asked for all his material to be removed from the website. This has been refused. I fail to see that linking the article to the site will add value to this article. Hopefully an improved Prem Rawat article is the desired outcome for all here.Balius (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't invalid. The publisher of the article The Sydney Morning Herald that publishes and distributes Good Weekend never retracted the "Blinded By The Light" article. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sylviecyn the "Good Weekend" Magazine is not published by the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a color insert in the Saturday edition only. The newspaper is published by Fairfax Media Ltd.The "Good Weekend" consists of paid for independent articles not under their control to retract and certainly not the view of the newspaper. I think the article makes it very clear that its the authors viewpoint alone. If the author now believes it to be unreliable surely that must account for something.Balius (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairfax Media owns both the Sydney Morning Herald and Good Weekend. What's the source for the articles in Good Weekend being paid for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with ownership. The Good Weekend Sunday liftout is is independent editorially from the newspaper that carry it. It prints mainly trivia, and easy reading stuff. Not a RS or even close to it, in particular given the author's retraction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It prints mainly trivia, and easy reading stuff. Not a RS or even close to it,... Says who? The Wikipedia article says it prints material from its award-winning journalists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"award-winning journalists"? Says who? Source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Says the Wikipedia article on the Sydney Morning Herald. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In any case, it does not matter. The article is not acceptable as a source given the declaration(s) of it author post-publication. You can chose to ignore, but that will not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We still don't have a reliable source for the author's purported declarations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Macgregor's affidavit does not state that he retracts the contents of the article. He does not apologize in the affidavit, it states he "believes" an apology is owed. The provenance of the affidavit is still in question here. And, if the publisher, of the article, Sydney Morning Herald, and Good Weekend have not retracted the article nor issued an apology (why would they, no legal action was ever brought against anyone for the writing of the article, including John MacGregor!!), then it's still a bona fide article published by a reliable source. Once again, the legal matter that lead to the MacGregor affidavit had absolutely nothing to do with the "Blinded By the Light" article, nor Prem Rawat who is the subject of this article. That was not the basis on which the suit was filed against MacGregor by George Laver and Ivory's Rock Conference Center (IRCC). Also, there are the June 2003 article(s) in UK's The Bristol Post which also mentions ex-premies. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and/or the volunteer entities were cult-like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. These implications are absolutely false and unfounded". It couldn't be clearer.Momento (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other topic

  • Will, just to review the existing mentions of his luxurious lifestyle, we have:
    1. "sumptuous lifestyle" in the lede,
    2. "jewelry and wristwatches worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000"
    3. "contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire"
    4. "the property,[63] which by 1998 was valued at $15 million"
    5. "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers"
    6. "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling"
    7. "money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use"
  • Many if not all of these have been implemented with consensus. I appreciate that there may be a POV that basically assumes that Rawat has defrauded people by making false promises, and that he has lined his own pockets with their money. However, I would not like to see this POV – and that is what it is – take over this article. The fact is that many people have had an experience through contact with his teachings that they feel grateful for, and that they feel adequately recompensed by their meditative experience which has changed the quality of their lives in a way that they feel is profound. Now, I quite like P. Diddy, though I have never bought one of his records. But if millions of people do, and feel enriched by his music, and he is worth half a billion dollars as a result, that is fine and dandy by me. I don't expect his Wikipedia article to inform me as to what model toilet he has installed in his home, based on his ill-gotten gains from music that serves to corrupt our youth, that he refused to eat from polystyrene plates at the BBC, or that the Daily Mirror reported that Veuve Cliquot isn't good enough for him. If I thought he was a shallow, immoral gangster, and my objective was to characterise him as a despicable human being, I could gather all this sort of tabloid ad-hominem gossip together and put it under "Criticism" in his article, arguing that it has all been reported by "reliable sources", and forget all about the fact that he is an artist. The same with this dude here – AFAICS, he is first and foremost a teacher of meditation. Not everyone's bag, doesn't have to be, just like P. Diddy's music, but both arguably have enriched a lot of people's lives. I would like to see a fair article for this subject. Jayen466 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What does this have to do with the mention of "ex-premie.org"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. It is under "Other topic". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is now.[24] It was origially under the RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO seems more related to User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will cp this to the pertinent proposal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hooray for Jayen466.Momento (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was a response to Will's writing Jossi's argument that it's only been mentioned a couple of times would make sense, except that he also argues we shouldn't mention the subject's life of luxury, which has been mentioned in dozens of newspaper articles. If the argument makes sense, it makes sense. And we do mention the subject's life of luxury at multiple places, and many of those mentions were put in with consensus of all parties present. Jayen466 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
An argument only makes sense if the proponent doesn't undercut his own assertions in another context. An editor says that something mentioned a couple of times isn't worth including. Elsewhere he says that something mentioned a couple of dozen times isn't worth including. How many times does something have to be reported before it's considered notable? Once? Twice? Twenty times? Ever? Wikipedia's policy already bias towards claims made by biography subjects. We don't need to push that bias further by totally negating the validity of sources that make negative comments about the subject. The Associated Press is not a tabloid. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Arguments make sense if they make sense. Using an editor's words against them from other contexts in no way changes that. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Arguments make sense if they're applied consistently. We can't say that X is notable because it appears once in a government database, Z is notable because it appears once in a self-published source, or Y is notable because it appears in two sources, and then say that A is not notable because it only appears in a few sources, or that B is not notable because it only appears in dozens of media sources. Notable things are noted. We're here to report what's notable. The fact that the subject acquired luxury cars, airplanes, and nice homes while a teenaged guru is notable. There aren't any other cases quite like his, and that uniqueness brought him attention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Associated Press is not a tabloid. It is not a scholarly analysis either.

"The media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light."

— The United Nations Special Rapporteur[5]
Jayen466 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
But you forgot (or perhaps didn't know) Jayen, that according to Prem Rawat's primary supporters, The Prem Rawat Foundation (which Jossi claims strenuously that Rawat founded) and Elan Vital (See their faq concerning this), what Maharaji offers is not a religion, is not a spiritual path, nor is it a philosophy. Prem Rawat, according to those faq, offers something that is compatible with any religion, spirituality or philosophy, but is not those things. Adherents will argue that they have no belief-system or religion -- which removes it from the religion category, that would ordinarily allow them to enjoy the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It never has been stated as a religion. It is only a religion technically, because Elan Vital (formerly DLM) is a registered 501(c)(3) organization registered with the U.S. IRS as a church in the United States. That's for tax purposes. Therefore, your argument is a fallacy and moot. And before Jossi, et al, scold me for voicing an opinion, what I just stated is a fact. It appears that Prem Rawat and his adherents want to have their cake and eat it too -- but one cannot argue on both sides of the street when logically, it's impossible to be on both sides of a street at the same time. :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Guys, it is practically considered bon ton for a new religious movement to deny that they are a religion. EV deny being a religion, so do Falun Gong[25], the Rosicrucians[26], the Osho movement (Süss, 1996), Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's TM.[27] ... their self-understanding cannot override academic consensus. From the NRM standpoint, the old religions are often seen as fossilised, and the NRM is described as all the things that the old religions once were but are no longer – based on authentic inner experience rather than socialisation, and so forth. This doesn't change the fact that all of them are considered NRMs by scholars, and that all of them indeed claim – and are usually granted – the protection afforded by the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion when it comes to legal (and tax) matters. Jayen466 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It depends on the context. If there is any doubt, ask me. I understand these things. And I am neutral. In the middle, so to speak. :-) Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a laugh, Rumiton. You're "neutral." LOL. Gimme a break. Jayen, please describe exactly what is your point in posting the UN Interim Report? Precisely who is being discriminated against relative to this article, and please be very specific. I thank you in advance for your answers. Merely posting the UN's report doesn't explain any issues you may have concerning this. Thanks!~ Sylviecyn (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Examples named by the UN Special Rapporteur in the referenced reports (US, Germany) include the usual suspects -- the Unification Church ("Moonies"), Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishna, Mormons outside Utah, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation, Baha'is, native Americans, as well as Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims living in the West. The U.S. report mentions an academic finding "that 43 per cent of Americans said they had a very negative or negative opinion of “fundamentalists” (a term which was not defined) and, secondly, that 80 per cent of them had negative opinions about sects or minority cults", adding that "there is a sort of low-level hostility and insensitivity" in US society. The Rapporteur characterised the general level of media reporting with regard to religious minorities as lacking sensitivity:

The Special Rapporteur also recommends a campaign for greater sensitivity in the media so that they do not put out a biased and harmful message with regard to religion and beliefs. There have to be limits on the fundamental freedom of the press when it generates actual intolerance, the antithesis of freedom. There is something wrong if certain media hide behind the fundamental principle of freedom in order to pervert it. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his recommendations regarding action to be taken under the advisory services programme (E/CN.4/1995/91, p. 147) and particularly the organization of training workshops for representatives of the media. He also calls for the establishment of machinery for consultation between the media and the religious communities. Finally, he invites media proprietors to show a more acute sense of responsibility in all fields.

His critique applies to media reporting in general. Scholarly sources are generally privileged by Wikipedia policy as the most reliable sources. Given the above evaluation of media reporting in this area, I think this point is even more important for this present article and the ones relating to it. --Jayen466 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We have the reliable source noticeboard. If someone wants to say that all media articles are biased when it comes to reporting facts about religious figures we should bring in wider community involvement before we adopt that as policy. We've already discused this issue, and agreed that media sources are reliable, that scholarly sources may be more reliable, and that when they conflict we should usually prefer the scholarly sources. As for the DLM/EV being a new religous movement - we don't have those articles in Category:new religious movements. Any objection to adding them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to say that all media articles are biased when it comes to reporting facts about religious figures: If? Someone has said it, and I for one am prepared to accept the United Nations Special Rapporteur as a reliable source on such matters. And, I may add, people who argue that a U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has got it all wrong don't usually appear in the best of lights.
We've already discused this issue, and agreed that media sources are reliable, that scholarly sources may be more reliable, and that when they conflict we should usually prefer the scholarly sources. Agreed on that part!
Any objection to adding them? Not from me. From a scholarly standpoint, I believe it would be uncontroversial. --Jayen466 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to add the UN report to articles where it's appropriate as a source. It directly doesn't mention this topic, or any of the sources we're using for this topic. There are numerous reports for governmental and quasi-governmental agencies on new religious movements, some of which do mention this subject directly. I don't see a reason to give special preference to the vague assertions of one such report. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The report is from 1997, two decades past the heyday of Rawat's news coverage. I see no reason to believe that news coverage on these topics was any less subject to the cited failings in the seventies. Jayen466 10:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Two decades later? And there's no evidence that the Special Rapporteur ever even read any of the press coverage from the subject's heyday. I don't think that the report should affect our writing of this article significantly. Let's stick to sources that actually mention the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much thought has gone into placing some groups into this category e.g. the hippie movement. The old DLM may qualify. Not sure about EV though. There is a distinction here It could muddy the waters.Balius (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will one of the sub-categories in new religious movements is hippie movement.If the hippie movement can be considered as a new religious movement a very long bow has been drawn. Sure hippies joined and engaged in specific new religious and new age practices but there was no one new religious movement. Apologies for my lack of communicating this. Balius (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's archiving active discussions?

Who's archiving active discussions on talk pages as the one above was done, and on other related talk pages? Please stop doing that. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Well, then I did. Would you still like to discuss procedural issues regarding the RfC? Frankly, I had grown tired of them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but what if I did?  :) I see no purpose in using that archiving technique and don't happen to like it when editors arbitrarily use it without explanation. It's been used in the past by certain editors to essentially stop discussions that I have wanted to add to. We already have a bot archiving outdated discussions and that's good enough. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Indian website

I missed the discussion re the Indian official site. What were the reasons for excluding it? If the majority of his followers today are in India, I thought it would be appropriate to include it. Jayen466 11:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Back in February we came to a consensus to remove all the websites except for the single one that is indisputably the site of the subject. That compromise has resulted in an unusual spell of peace in the "External links" section, which has in the past been the site of so much edit warring. This particular site has been the subject of discussion. It is not the official site of the subject: it is a site belonging to followers and has no more place here than a site belonging to ex-followers. Let's please stick with the consensus that has brought us a least a little peace in one corner of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (lifestyle)

I've proposed to go life with User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7#Draft 4.

Please discuss at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7#Draft 4 (continued). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan mediation discussion

As part of the ongoing mediation, I've opened a thread to discuss the status of Andrea Cagan's Peace is Possible as a reliable source for this article. See User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing mediation consensus

I was under the understanding that all major edits to these articles would be done only if there is consensus reached. So, what happened with this new article Bibliography of Prem Rawat and his organizations which was previously in talk namespace? My objections are raised at Talk:Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_his_organizations#In_mainspace ?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose to move this new article to a proposal sandbox, until consensus has been reached about its contents, as we are doing with all other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is obvious. I beg to differ per arguments presented in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An alternative would be to remove all material from that article that is not part of a Bibliography, as I have argued there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Jossi, please don't keep deleting material just because you don't like it. If you want to delete the article there are proper channels for that. There has never been any agreement preventing new articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawat and the media

I started User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9, for a rewrite of Prem Rawat#Media --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please seek consensus before starting new proposals. There are other proposals that need work. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying we need a consensus to seek a consensus? That's getting silly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No.Momento (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, then let's just get on with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood once again, so I'll repeat what I said. Please seek consensus before starting new proposals.Momento (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we first have a discussion to see whether there's a consensus to seek a consensus before starting a proposal? Do we even have a consensus to be having this discussion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: ask Steve's advise. Last time I remember he was encouraging people to start proposals in his userspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors note that the following articles have recently been created:

--Jayen466 00:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Emancipated minor

As requested:

In Denver in April 1974, Maharaji applied to become an emancipated minor, because he and Marolyn were now engaged, and he knew his mother would not condone his marriage at sixteen (or any other age, considering the American wife he had chosen). With his emancipation, he could obtain a legal marriage license without his mother’s signature. After spending about forty-five minutes with a judge, he was granted his request. (p. 197) [...]Also, since he had arrived in the U.S. at the age of thirteen, he was provided support by the organization in the U.S. in keeping with his guest status until he became an emancipated minor capable of pursuing his own interests privately. (p. 218) [6]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for a reliable source. Cagan directly conflicts with sources of known reliablility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no source that contradicts Cagan. You may need to understand what is needed legally to be married at age 16 without parents agreement in Colorado. That is called minor emancipation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If becoming an emancipated minor was the requirement for getting married then why did he have to get a judge's approval to marry? What's your source for Colorado marriage law in 1974? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing about needing to become an emancipated minor in the current statute.[28] All that's required is a judge's permission, which reliable sources tell us was granted to Rawat in May 1974. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
All I know is that the marriage of a minor results in his emancipation according to Colorado law. You may want to check with a Wikipedian that is a lawyer in that state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Minors who are legally married are considered emancipated. This isn't a legal declaration as much as a natural outcome of marriage.[29] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitions in the statute say that getting married results in emancipation, not the other way around.[30] Maybe Cagan should have consulted a lawyer, and a calender, before saying that Rawat became emanicpated in April in order to marry. The verifiable facts are that he got permission in May to marry, resulting in his emancipation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
So? What is the problem then? Here is more: children are emancipated and parents no longer have an obligation to support them if they become economically independent through employment, entry into military service, or marriage, and may be constructively emancipated if they, without cause, withdraw from parental control and supervision); Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 700 A.2d 384 ( ) (emancipation occurs by reason of reaching age of majority, marriage, or when child is voluntarily no longer in the care, custody, and control of either parent). Emancipation is also achieved when a child voluntarily marries or enters the armed forces. In essence, prior to the age of majority, marriage, or entry into military service, so long as a child is still in need of the care and custody and control of his or her parents, the child is not emancipated. Broyles v. Broyles, 711 P.2d 1119 (Wyo.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To be able to marry a minor needs a special court order, which in fact makes the minor emancipated, as to be able to be married you need to be so. Chicken and egg thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article, apparently based on an unreliable source, now says:

Based on tihs discussion and on reliable sources, I propsoe we change it to:

  • In May 1974, at the age of sixteen, Rawat received permission from a judge to get married. His marriage to Marolyn Johnson, a 24-year old follower and secretary of Rawat from San Diego, California, was officiated at a non-denominational church in Golden, Colorado.[9] Rawat's mother, Mata Ji, had not been invited.[10] As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor.

That fixes the error. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The "permission from a judge to get married" is in fact a statement of emancipation. Ask a lawyer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, permission to get married doesn't make one emanicipated; getting married does. He did not get married, or even meet with the judge, in April. He met with the judge on May 7, and got married later that month. Then, and only then, did he become emancipated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, he did not met with the judge on May 7. The order was issued on May 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope again. Basically, to get married a minor needs to go to Juvenile court and ask a judge to assess if he/she can be emancipated from his/her parents. If the judge sees it fit, he will give his approval so that the minor can get married. That is what a lawyer friend tells me. Ask a lawyer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For example, read [31] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's for California, and obviously Raat wouldn't have met its reauirements anyway as he had dropped out of school some years prior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this: If a minor becomes married he/she is automatically becomes emancipated. Many minors marry with the consent of their parents. Now, if a minor cannot get the agreement of the parents, he/she goes to court and ask to be declared emancipated so that he can marry. Cagan is correct and your "reliable source" is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What's Cagan's source? It certainly doesn't say that in the statute books. The statute gives a clear policy on how to get married as a minor, and it doesn't mention having to get emancipated first. That's just the automatic result of actually having gotten married. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To get married as a minor, without parents' consent, you need a court order that declares you emancipated. If you marry as a minor with parents' consent, you are automatically considered emancipated. Got it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting there here for completeness:

  • The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune

the only source that Jossi has found for Rawat becoming emancipated in April is Cagan, known to be an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    • I think that you have lost your ability to see clearly, seriously. Cagan says that PR applied in April, and the newspaper says that the order was issued on May 7. Cagan is not wrong at all. And I am not making that up: ask a lawyer and inquire about "what kind of court order I need to get married when I am a minor and my parents are either dead or not reachable" and you will get the answer: you need to be declared an emancipated minor by a Juvenile Court. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (and before you reply with your opinion, please ask a lawyer so that you do not have to take my word for it) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There is nothing inaccurate about the proposed text. The existing text is inaccurate. The Colorado statute is clear that emanicaption follows from marriage, not the other way around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Colorado statute is clear that emanicaption follows from marriage ... if the marriage is conducted with parents consent. When there is no consent or the parents are dead or unreachable, you need to be declared emancipated before you can get a license to marry. Ask a lawyer, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't need a lawyer when we alrady have a reliable source that tells us just what happened. If you want the opinion of your lawyer to have any weight here please give his contact info so we can confirm his interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The sources do not compete with each other whatsoever. I am not giving you the name of my friends, sorry. Ask a Wikpedian lawyer to explain the difrerence between automatic emancipation [32], and the court procedure to request emancipation [33]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If you're not to give the name of your friend then don't mention him as a source. The difference is between getting permission to marry and getting married. According to statute, a minor would become emancipated if married even with the permission of parents. The judge gave permission to get married. As it says in the reliable source. Please stop pushing Cagan's flawed history down our throats. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I think that you should seriously consider taking a wikibreak, Will. It seems that you are unable to listen to reasonable arguments in your pursuit of dismissing Cagan as a source. You were wrong in your interpretation of the dates, and you are wrong in your interpretation of what is needed for a minor to get a marriage license, when the parents are dead or unreachable. For the nth time: ask a Wikipedian lawyer. ("our throats" do you have more than one?) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The only basis you have for saying that the Associated Press is wrong is Cagan. Hence you are asserting indirectly that Cagan is more reliable than the AP, which is ridiculous. Let's please use the best sources we can find. And as for Wikilawyers, point me to the Wikibar and I'll go ask one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The only basis you have for saying that the Associated Press is wrong is Cagan. I am not saying that the AP is wrong and Cagan is right. I am saying that there is no contradiction between the sources. Actually both sources are complementary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • wikibar: Category:Wikipedian lawyers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Even if you take Cagan's interpretation the curent text is still wrong. Do you have any reason to oppose the proposed text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Current text: In April 1974, at the age of sixteen, Rawat became an emancipated minor,[citation needed] and in May married Marolyn Johnson. Johnson was a 24-year old follower and secretary of Rawat from San Diego, California.
          • Corrected text: 'In April 1974, Rawat applied to become an emancipated minor, and in May a marriage license was granted to marry Marolyn Johnson. Johnson was a 24-year old stewardess, a follower and secretary of Rawat from San Diego, California. They married on May 20 at the Rockland Community Church, in Gennessee Mountain, Colorado (or something along these lines) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I find Will's arguments generally to be sound and logical in this particular case, since he has quoted reliable sources and you have not, his argument has, at the very least, a ring of truthiness (look it up! [thanks Colbert!]) to it. This business about "your friend the lawyer" is a bit ridiculous, unless of course, he was a lawyer in Colorado in the 70's, specializing in emancipation, and other people are allowed to ask him questions. Since I can only imagine the biased phrasing you used to ask your questions to him, which I'm sure, given the above restrictions, he would immediately indicate he was unqualified to answer, other than giving his professional interpretation of the statute, which Will has already quoted, and seems reasonably straight-forward. Why didn't you consult with a Wikipedian lawyer yourself? AP makes a pretty detailed report giving the dates of this event as May, Cagan says April, one of them is wrong. If for no other reason than Occam's Razor (and I hardly think we have to stretch that far), Cagan is unreliable (again, or is that still?). -- Maelefique (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done – also brought the lead section in line with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  • In the first sentence of Coming to Age, we are telling the reader that Rawat turned 16 in Dec. 73. In the second sentence of Coming to Age, we are telling the reader that he was sixteen in May 1974. Isn't that a bit redundant? --Jayen466 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done – note that there is also still an "approached sixteen years of age" in the last paragraph of the preceding section, so there are still enough "16"s around after I removed one now, I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A further remark by Momento appeared at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7#Draft 4 (v2.0):

Regarding the emancipated minor issue: "In May 1974 Rawat received permission from a judge to get married".[52] needs to be changed to stay close to the source, to - Still a minor, Rawat needed a court order to obtain a license to marry without parental permission. In May 1974 he obtained such court order from a Juvenile court in Colorado.[52]

Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 9: Media Reception

Interested editors are invited to discuss this proposal at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal9_(Media) Jayen466 12:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Do we have a better WP:RS for the Gavin Newsom story? Presently it is cited to a TPRF press release put out on U.S. Newswire and a Times of India article that obviously picked that press release up. There is a youtube video on the event, but the person handing Rawat the award does not appear to be Newsom. Google News finds nothing. Was there nothing in any of the San Francisco papers? Jayen466 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I searched ProQuest and all it has are the press releases. This type of proclamation is so routine that even local newspapers rarely cover them. It's not mentioned in the rather exhaustive list of activities listed on the mayor's webpage.[35] I also checked the Board of Supervisors (which SF has in place of a city council), and there was nothing on the agenda about it in the months prior.[36] Newsom has been so casual about making these proclamations that last year he proclaimed "Colt Studio Day" in honor of the gay porn company.[37] A check of Google shows that he does indeed making many such proclamations.[38] While it may be verifiable, is it notable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not; as it stands, we make it sound rather more than it is. Jayen466 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I checked to see if these proclamations are mentioned in other bios. Most of the proclamations concern non-individuals (Ferrari Day, Native San Fransiscans Day, Lung Cancer Awareness Day). I found four that were for individuals. Of those we only have an article on one and the proclamation isn't mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, the only widely reported "honors by city" event was when in Detroit he was going to be presented with the key to the city on August 7, 1973[14] (or in other versions: "The council was considering a special testimonial resolution for [Rawat]")[15]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be better to mention that honour then and drop the SF one. Jayen466 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We have numerous sources for the Detroit matter, and we eventually need to add some mention of the pie incident, though the bulk of it's covered in the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So, proposing:

1. Insert this paragraph between the 2nd and 3rd para of Prem Rawat#Leaving India:

When on August 7, 1973 Rawat went to the Detroit city hall in order to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, he was pied by a reporter of the anti-establishment Detroit periodical Fifth Estate.[16][17]

2. Remove 3rd paragraph of Prem Rawat#2000s (the Gavin Newsom para).

If left the choice, I'd think #1 above the more important to *include*, that is: more important than to *remove* #2. #1 would also allow to simplify my proposal 9 #1 v2 – done, now proposal 9 #1 v3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. If we mention the pieing later in reception, it would be helpful to have mentioned it before in the bio. It was quite a notable event, undignified though it was. Jayen466 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Two actions taken together (removal of recognition by Gavin Newsom which happened few years ago, and addition of cream pie incident which occured 30 years ago) seems incorrect to me. Are we tilting the article with alteration of all texts that are postive to the subject of the article?--Taxed123 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic E

Please see User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic E: history negligence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 7: implementation of draft 4, v2.3 proposed

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Another side of the story was added since this article is clearly one sided. Not even Christianity gets this kind of favoritism played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.100.83 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My referenced criticism is being vandalized and this is clear favoritism. This should not be tolerated. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.100.83 (talk • contribs)

Clearly you did not since the article itself is clearly violating BLP since it references articles written by the followers of the man who are clearly lying when compared to the articles you refuse to allow to be posted. This is a clear cut case of favoritism. However don't bother yourself with referencing to the BLP violation like I did you could might actually be proven wrong then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.102.121 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My fair criticism was deleted without notice. This is completely unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.100.83 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss proposed changes with the other involved editors before implementing them. (Note that new sections on a talk page usually go to the bottom, rather than the top, of the page.) In this specific article, there is a proposal process in place, in which you are welcome to contribute. Jayen466 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Links to copyrighted material at rickross.com --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation

See:

I'd advise against it: it's the surest way to scare away fresh contributors. We had arbitration (... which lost us among others Janice Rowe), followed by informal mediation (Msalt? ...). Tools for dealing with anything that can occur are more than sufficient. Of course I think Steve should take the time to absorb some of the ArbCom case (when he's back from holidays ;) - and then we should stop running in circles: if a certain editor plays "I didn't hear that" regarding the status of PIP, we use the tools installed by the ArbCom case: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is part of a guideline, and blockable, so no problem to bring that to AE (and let the AE folk deal with it); if another user posts extensive talk page comments breaking down proposals by others without ever proposing a piece of text or reference that could be used for the article, then, surely, the current informal mediation can deal with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just re-reading over this. The ArbCom case is extraordinarily large. I'm not so sure that I'd be able to read all of it, and absorb it all. Besides, Arbcom deals with editorial conduct. MedCab and MedCom deals with content disputes. I'm not so sure how the ArbCom case would help, but perhaps you could explain? Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, what I want to avoid is running through the same tredmill, where perhaps almost anything has been said already. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Francis, that's part of the magic of formal mediation: the Mediator will undertake a full reading into the case's background (in this dispute, s/he'll be there for a while...), including relevant arbitration cases. Formal mediation involves a much more structured approach to facilitating consensus-building discussion, and I've found that it works very well "in the background" -- that is, it interferes with the contributions of fresh editors much less than, say, a medcab case.
Trust me: if you enter into mediation with the medcom, you'll have a serious crack at getting this matter closer to a resolution than it'll ever have been before. Anthøny(talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what happened the last time I volunteered participation in a formal mediation after ArbCom. Sorry if that casts doubt on your rosy picture. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I am still awaiting an email from the Committee, it is taking a little longer than I originally thought. I suppose we can discuss the matter after I receive their reply, I hope to have it today. Steve Crossin Contact/24 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • @Francis: don't worry, there is no rosy picture here. I'm well aware that a small number of parties here are going to stand in the way of our attempts at DR.Retracted with apologies; superseded by below. I suppose the fact that we're hitting a hurdle with even getting folks to try formal mediation stands to support that. I'm afraid I can't compensate for prior bad experiences with formal mediation, but... Everybody's different. All that's being asked is that you try it. One can't expect to disagree, yet indefinitely refuse to participate in exercises that find a common ground. Anthøny(talk) 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

@Anthony: please remove your insult, "I'm well aware that a small number of parties here are going to stand in the way of our attempts at DR": if you say that in a response directed at me, it is entirely inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Francis, I apologise: I didn't mean to come across in that way. Let me try again: I'm well aware that several parties are reluctant to enter into more 'formal' arrangements for dispute resolution. Trust me, I wasn't 1/ having a dig at you; 2/ launching an attack on you. Look up my contrib' history -- I'm just not that sort of guy. :) I'm here to try and help Steve, who has been doing an excellent job thus far, and the parties as best as I can. And, of course: my previous sentence, stricken. Anthøny(talk) 12:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was Anthony's intent to attack anyone. I think he was generally saying that in every sort of dispute (this one included), there are very different types of parties, and that some may be less, er, flexible, when alternative solutions are suggested. That's just my look at it. I do think that a more experienced mediator to have a look at this case, while me continuing on in some role, whether co-mediating beside them, or something else, would be the best course of action. It's really just the question of where it's done. Steve Crossin Contact/24 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, please remove your insult: "...some may be less, er, flexible, when alternative solutions are suggested", if you're saying that about me, it's still an insult. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • (e/c with AGK)It's not directed at you Francis, and it's not intended to be an insult. It's a general statement. I've mediated four cases for MedCab, and at least 3 on talk pages, and in my experience, there have been parties that have been firm in their ways, for example, my Spore Mediation was such an example. I am only saying that there are parties in cases who appear to be somewhat firmer than may be liked. It's not an insult, and it's not pointed at you. Steve Crossin Contact/24 12:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I don't think that's an insult. Steve's speaking his mind, and he has every right to, no? Look on the bright side of what he's saying, rather than get defensive -- that's the best way to edit. :) Steve: I don't think you need to retract your statement; above, I did (in hindsight, I worded it poorly), but here, you're fine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AGK (talk • contribs)
Well, are you? Anthøny(talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit opinions from other parties to this mediation, in addition to Francis. Opinions on Steve passing the dispute along to the more structured hand of the MedCom are welcome. Anthøny(talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Anthony, most of the parties gave their opinions here (as I am well aware the committee is aware, thanks to Deskana ;) Steve Crossin Contact/24 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I will watch the formal mediation process. If it looks like creating an editing environment from which an intelligent, informative and balanced article might emerge, I will come back. Otherwise I am out of here. Bye. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If Francis, who is the only one that has raised a concern in this regard withdraws his objection, formal mediation can certainly proceed. As a reminder, formal mediation requires that all parties agree to it. I propose that we do this as per process and open a request ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) The concern is valid (that concern being, as explained in more words above: it is my experience that too much procedure has the tendency to scare away fresh contributors – and maybe fresh contributors is what we are wanting more now than the same set of contributors rummaging again over the same content). I'd like to see someone actually addressing that concern instead of this hush-hush attitude.
    • Re. "If Francis [...] withdraws his objection, formal mediation can certainly proceed" – it can proceed with or without my concerns: false dichotomy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, per this, if one party rejects, the case cannot be accepted. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't say anything about the concern I raised above. So, repeating: I'd like to see someone actually addressing that concern. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you restate your concern, because I can't exactly see which one you're referring to. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this is offensive: I don't know where you are with your thoughts. My first contribution to this page above, and then repeated some contributions later beginning with "that concern being, as explained in more words above: ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not as if this topic needs to be concluded in five minutes. You can take your time to read comments, and maybe that's preferable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I will try to be more attentive (even at half past 2 in the morning ;) Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What I read above, is the concern that formal mediation discourages participation from "fresh" contributors. In my experience I am not sure that this is the case, but I will leave the clarification to be made by the MedCom≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) There's no concern regarding formal mediation as such, that's an incorrect rephrasing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I see the concern, but I also think that at this stage, and from what I have seen in this case so far, not many editors have been willing to get involved. It is a rather contentious dispute. I'm not so sure if this case stayed at MedCab, whether fresh editors would join in the mediation, and I doubt that the case being at MedCom would alter this, for the better, or for the worse. Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Steve, it's not quite clear what point you're trying to make with that last comment, could you explain? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure. I've been involved with this case for quite some time, and from the responses I have got, the general reaction when I mention on IRC, or elsewhere, "Prem Rawat", people run in the other direction. I had to beg for someone to look at an RSN post some time back. There was a recent request for comment that got so little input that it was largely unhelpful. AN/I threads which wouldn't get looked at for hours, or were ignored, because it related to Prem Rawat. Basically, people are unwilling to become involved because it's such a controversial area of editing, and I was just noting that I've noticed it. Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Very sensible, and not unlike my line of thought lately: it would be better to get rid of the "high profile" status of the Prem rawat related content (...that scares people away). It is my feeling that going to formal mediation at this point in time would be another step buttressing that "don't come near" feeling many editors appear to have. I can only hope (and am willing to collaborate to this end) that Prem Rawat and related articles can go back to normal Wikipedia editing procedures ASAP. My efforts regarding Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations can be seen in that light. As far as I'm concerned that article seems about to be "ripe" to be taken out of the pool of Rawat-related articles that need "special" attention (mediation etc).
      • Note, on the other hand, when taking for instance a look at the latest WP:RSN topics that spinned off from informal mediation (Affidavits, Rolling Stone), they appear to have attracted interesting and helpful outsider comments, and helped to settle a few issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, this is a high profile case and that status hasn't helped the case at all. But I think that such a profile, given the subject, would be hard to remove. It does appear that you are not in favour of formal mediation (this case progressing to it). I'm going to ask a direct question here, if this case were to be at WP:RFM, would you Reject it there? If i know your course of action, it would aid me in how I will handle this dispute. If you don't wish to answer, that's fine too. Steve Crossin Contact/24 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, that. Yes, I saw that, but I still think that it will take an awful lot to diffuse the high profile and contentiousness of this area, This dispute has been on Wikipedia for like 4 years now :) Steve Crossin Contact/24 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It only got a very high profile from February 6, 2008 (I wouldn't even describe its profile all that high before that date). Initially that change in profile attracted new editors, and renewed interest from others. Then came the procedures: by now the high profile generated by these procedures is more a burden than a help in attracting sensible contributors (and the procedures definitely chased a few, see the names involved in the ArbCom case compared to what we have today). So, whether it takes a lot of time or not, building down the procedures (and the high profile resulting from them) is not as if there's some sort of alternative. At least I've not seen a single compelling argument why keeping up the high profile based on an escalation of procedure would be beneficial, for anything. And there's a difference between giving it time to diffuse, and keeping the high profile up wilfully for no apparent reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say there was no apparent reason. The article suffered from edit wars. I am not optimistic that that wouldn't start up again right away once the restrictions were lifted. Jayen466 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't relate to what I was saying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If that question seems too direct, I apologise, however I am expecting an email from the chair very soon, actually, I was expecting it a day ago, so I could receive it anytime now. I just need to be prepared. Steve Crossin Contact/24 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the candid question, no need to apologise for the directness, I appreciate that. I can't answer pre-emptively however. I look at how a case is presented (that is when the formal request is filed), and decide then. Some facts (that are not an answer, but may give some insight): when invited to participate in mediation, which thus far happened about a handful times (formal and informal taken together) as far as I can remember, I've mostly been one of the first to register. For the Prem Rawat MedCab case someone else registered me. If the presentation of a case would contain verbiage in the sense of the "the magic of formal mediation..." or the like, well, that turns me off (I've had my experiences).
  • Note that if you don't want to run the risk, it is not obligatory to invite me. That's also what I meant when I wrote "[formal mediation] can proceed with or without my concerns" above. Then it further only would depend on other participants whether they think my participation is unmissable. And if they do think that, I can still listen to reasonable arguments. Nothing lost. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that if this case went to the mediation committee, all active participants in this case would be included. I'm not sure (and I'd be suprised) if you can just "pick and choose" which editors to include. And as how the case would be filed, or who would file it, is still unclear. Steve Crossin Contact/24 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Above you linked to Wikipedia:Mediation. Most of what you talk about is addressed there, for instance:
    • Mediators commonly want to reduce the number of parties, usually two. Other concerned parties are sometimes invited to appoint somebody to represent their views in the case. Might work here.
    • There's no prerogative as to who may file a request, anyone can: but most preferably parties seeing need for formal mediation, decide together to go there.
  • At least that's what I understand from that guidance page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, the mediator is empowered to reduce the active participants to 2, who act as representatives, and the other editors talk through them. I suppose it is up to the mediator. As for who would file the RFM, I imagine it would be Will, as he initially requested it be upgraded to formal mediation, however, I could choose to refer the case to MedCom myself, but it would work like any other RFM, i suppose.Steve Crossin Contact/24 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Nor rush... Just that doing it per process, will remove any ambiguity about that acceptance of the mediation by parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, if a request for mediation is filed, the parties will still have to visit the case page and sign off their acceptance there: a simple but necessary formality. The idea behind asking here if folks are willing to move into formal mediation is, I suspect, simply to ensure that we aren't headed for a guaranteed rejection due to lack of party agreement: we're just getting an idea of what our options a little farther down the line will be. Ultimately, however, it's Steve and the parties that make the choice here; as I said, however, formal mediation will do (at minimum) some good for you guys–and possibly a whole lot more too. Anthøny 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I am aware, that is still what would happen. The matter being discussed on the list (from what I gather), was whether I would have a role in the case, and if so, what it would be. But obviously, that depends on whether all the parties accept formal mediation. So, the accept/reject would still happen, and if someone rejected formal mediation, well..... Steve Crossin Contact/24 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm tending to agree with Francis, or at least I'm undecided on formal mediation. More mediation isn't necessarily better. Also, re: the issue concerning the affidavit, well, nothing was resolved about it so it hardly matters that uninvolved people responded. Nothing got done on it. Steve, if you don't have the time for this, that's understandable. Btw, who's Daniel, from whom your waiting to hear? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I sounded somewhat more optimistic. As far as I can see no affidavits returned on mediation proposal pages. Seems pretty much settled to me. Imho, your final comment on that WP:RSN topic wrapped it all up. I see no problem to take to WP:AE, if someone would play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the affidavits issue. So yes, pretty much settled, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Daniel is the acting chair of the committee, while WJBScribe is away. Apparently, the committee has already made their decision, I am just waiting to be informed by the chair. As for my involvement, I'll stay available to help as long as my help is sought. :) Steve Crossin Contact/24 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I encourage everyone here to continue participating in mediation. Several editors have worked on numerous drafts of Proposal 7, for example, but none of the drafts have consensus. I don't see any harm that can come of this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, in response to Frances' comment above, it was not mediation that burned me out, but simple exhaustion as well as the failure of the ArbCom to address or even acknowledge carefully laid out evidence of Jossi's misdeeds that convinced me there isn't any recourse or fair forum available within the Wikipedia organization to solve this blatant POV skewing and conflict of interest. Very disillusioning. Wikipedia is a beautiful concept but, like US politics, hasn't figured out how to solve the problem of disproportionate influence by highly motivated special interest groups.Msalt (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ex-premies"

In "Crtical viewpoints": Former followers became known as "Ex-premies” - I’ld like to put it more precisely, like: A group of former followers have engaged in antagonising Prem Rawat and became known as “Ex-premies”, because probably the majority of former followers do not take a hostile stance over the subject. “Ex-premies” seems to have rather become a brand name for organized active detractors on the internet, and I think a majority of former practitioners, who may have stopped practicing for various reasons, would prefer not to be identified with that. If there is no substantial objection, I will amend the text accordingly.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You're wrong, Rainer. I think the "branding" is exclusive to the meme developed in the premie mind-set and no where else. So, unless you have a reliable source to back up your POV claim, I'd suggest you drop this kind of personal attack against fellow-editors. And, btw, maybe it's time to lock this article again -- it seems like vandals of all stripes are trying to insert their unfounded, unsourced povs. Rainer, people are sincerely trying to reach concensus on this article. What you've written doesn't help in the least. Are you aware that these Rawat articles are under ARBCom and mediation? If so, why aren't you signed on to go by those rules? Your post above is disruptive. Please stop. This article isn't open to your sporatic postings and edits. ! Sylviecyn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right, and none of the referenced sources actually says "Former followers became known as Ex-premies". However, what you suggest putting in is OR as well. I believe Ron Geaves has written a paper mentioning the ex-premies and the ex-premie.org website. So we could add a mention with a suitably neutral wording sourced to Geaves's paper -- i.e. that there are former followers calling themselves ex-premies who operate a website critical of Rawat. Jayen466 11:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He's not probably right, Jayen, he definitely wrong, Jayen. One and only one person owns that EPO website and he's already responded to this below. I think premies and their apologists are overthinking this term "ex-premie." It's no different than the terms ex-wife or ex-husband. And there is no group, hate or otherwise. I object very strongly to having "ex-premies" being characterized by Ron Geaves and I don't care what university he writes from. Geaves is a long time devotee of Rawat and one of his most ardent apologists. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are missing the obvious here. Former premies who have simply gotten on with their lives do not "become known" as ex-premies. They "become known" as ex-premies if they speak or write about their experience. It's quite natural – people do not "become known" as ex-catholics if they quietly convert to Anglicanism; they "become known" as ex-catholics if they write or speak about what, in their view, is wrong with Catholicism and why they left it. That's all. Jayen466 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere fast, since Rainer neglected to make a new proposal in accordance with MEDCAB. It's his/her choice as to whether he wants to follow the rules concerning this topic (Prem Rawat). We could talk all day long and into the night debating your POV and mine, but where the rubber meets the road, nothing is going into the article that hasn't gone through the proposal, draft, and mediation process which is the place to reach concensus. That's what most of us agreed to. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We have made more significant changes than the one Rainer was proposing above without going through the full proposal process, e.g. [39], just based on talk page consensus. Jayen466 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw, re Geaves, what I suggested above was to include a mention, sourced to Geaves, but with a suitably neutral wording. If you're unclear what I meant by that, it meant "a wording that does not disparage ex-premies." Jayen466 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ho hum, here we go again.... The former followers who run websites critical of Rawat call ALL former followers 'ex-premies' following the established use of the english prefix 'ex-' meaning 'former', and the word 'premie' which was for many years publicly used for a follower of Rawat. It is only a small group of hostile current followers that repeatedly try to change the meaning of the term to restrict it to those former followers who post on the internet. You cannot reference former followers as coining the term (and we didn't), and then give the term a different meaning. Secondly, my guess, which is good as, if not better than, Rainer's guess, is that the vast majority of former followers have a negative view of Rawat. Both guesses are of course inappropriate for this encyclopedia. --John Brauns (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the attack, Sylvie? And where is it personal? Why are you defensive? Aren’t you in a way proud of having “exed” and generally recommending it to others? Perhaps a bit OR, as I personally do know a couple of people who stopped practicing, but would certainly not have anything to do with “Ex-premie”-activities. Just like you probably know a lot of people who think like you do. Everybody lives very much in their own universe. Numbers are really guessing, I agree with John. So, the statement former followers became known as “Ex-premies” simply lacks differentiation, and I’m trying not to attack anyone with the suggested amendment in the article, do I. And John, I understand you like to believe you are avantgarde in consent with a “silent majority” of former premies, but by your ostentatious style you have made the term “Ex” problematic in this context. In my understanding one is not necessarily obliged to treat the subjects of their “ex”-relationships in such a throughout derogatory way as you advertise on your sites, and you have actually usurped the term from its common use, that’s why there needs to be more differentiation in the article at that point. And Sylvie, I’ld love to contribute less sporadically, but I am really a very busy person, running a family and not being unemployed, and I’m happy if I can help enhancing the article’s precision every now and then, please try to understand. Probably not so much different from what you do. And I am not a vandal. And I don’t feel the original issue of this thread has been resolved. Former followers did not become known as Ex-premies. Ex-premies became known as Ex-premies, and most of them are former followers. Not?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There have been so many discussions of the word "ex" when attached to "premie." "Former premies" is the same thing as "ex-premies." Your labeling of former followers doesn't help. Btw, "ex-premie" was a term used long before EPO. Please find the discussions in the archives and please read them. In your post above, you again engaged in personal attacks by characterizing John as ostentatious and myself as defensive. Please stop that. And please don't bring off-wiki issues here, it goes against the ARBCOM findings. It's inappropriate, and definitely not helpful. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an off-Wiki-issue. The statement Former followers became known as "Ex-premies" would be tautological, if both were the same thing! If it is tautological, it does not belong here. If it is not, it needs explaining. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • They are the same thing and it's only tautological because you're making it so. But, this isn't a discussion forum about ex-premies/former followers. It's a BLP article about Prem Rawat. A Wikipedia article named "Ex-premie.org" was created last month and already deleted. See Articles for Deletion ex-premie.org If you want to have a discussion about the semantics of "ex-premies" and "former followers" you're welcome to register and post on the Prem Rawat Talk forum. You know where it is. Enough already. Stop trying to bait me, please. And btw, please address me by my full username "Sylviecyn," not "Sylvie." Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Rainer. Jayen466 13:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In my perception, “premies” is still common in safe traditional non-formal inside use, e.g. from one “premie” to another. It is just easier than the somewhat laborious term officially prevailing in inside communication at the time, which seems to be “PWK” (= Person(s) With Knowledge), or, in public use, “students”, which is more neutral, but less specific, as it may include “aspirants”, i.e. people who are in the preparation process (the “Keys”), or just anybody, who likes to listen to Prem Rawat. Somehow “Ex-PWK” would sound a bit weird (who wants to be an ex-person?). “Former student” sounds quite factual. “Ex-premie” has become brand for a certain defined type of former students, who for instance advocate “exing”, among other things, which seems to mean a negative reverse of the aspirant process. Somebody please correct me, if I am mistaken or misunderstanding.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • As it relates to this dispute, it appears that older followers were called "premies", but that usage has largely ended. Therefore all ex-followers from that period could be called "ex-premies". Former students/PWK/aspirants who came to the movement later and were never called "premies" wouldn't be called ex-premies. In any case, I doubt we'll every find better sources than we already have for this. We have at least one source from the '90s that uses the term to refer to ex-followers. I don't see the need to change the text in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Rawat had upwards of 50,000 followers in the US alone, in the early seventies. Our sources seem to indicate that the majority of that early following dropped out over the subsequent decades. It's not my impression, and I believe no source alleges, that there are tens of thousands of people in the States who are "known as ex-premies". Do you think I'm being too literal?
  • What I suggested was using Geaves as a source, since he specifically comments about ex-premies and their inimical relationship to Rawat, but sticking in our article strictly to the neutrally describable facts, and emending any bias or side-taking that may be present in his paper. Jayen466 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see where Geaves says that there is a group of ex-followers known as "ex-premies". Could you quote the text to which you're refering? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond" refers to ex-followers and the ex-premie website. Jayen466 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Here's the quote:

          Maharaji will face the problem of renewing inspiration to support his efforts to reach out to a wider audience. In addition, he now faces the added difficulties of the cultural suspicion of new movements in the face of over twenty-five years of anticult publicity from the Western media. Although not attracting media coverage himself, a small but vociferous minority of ex-followers, unable to accommodate change and showing signs of considerable cognitive dissonance, has cornered the market as Maharaji's opposition, determined to destroy his reputation through public denunciation on their website.37

          37 For the perspective of this group of dissatisfied ex-followers see <http://www.ex-premie.org>, accessed April 2002.

          Jayen466 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Based on that source we can say something like, "Some disgruntled ex-members started a website called "ex-premies.org". We can't say, "Some former followers became known as ex-premies" because that is not what Geaves says. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Quite agree. But at least it would be properly sourced, which the present sentence isn't. Jayen466 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • We could replace the present sentence with the following,

            According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, Rawat faces the difficulties of cultural suspicion of new movements occasioned by over twenty-five years of anticult publicity in the Western media, and although he himself does not attract media attention, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying his reputation through public denunciation on their website (ex-premie.org).

            Jayen466 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't suggest we get into all of that. Simply repeating that "he himself does not attract media attention" is incongruous after discussing the 50-member public relations team, etc. If we said that then we'd need to provide the other viewpoints on his media relations, which is the topic of a different paragraph (where that part of Geaves statement may be appropriate). Let's keep it focused on the ex-followers. How about According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a "vociferous minority" of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying "his reputation through public denunciation on their website" (ex-premie.org). That avoids bringing in the synopsis of Rawat's public career. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I think mention of the "cultural suspicion of new movements occasioned by over twenty-five years of anticult publicity in the Western media" is appropriate in the section; falls under critical viewpoints (our heading). Rawat not attracting media attention obviously refers to recent years, but that part is not a must-have for me. Jayen466 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I believe we can dispense with the quotation marks as well; it seems neutral and factual enough. Jayen466 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • [outdent] If we want to get into the "cultual suspicion" matter we should do so in a separate sentence or paragraph. This sentence is about ex-followers, not about anticult publicity, etc. The current text reads:

Former followers became known as "Ex-premies",[116][130][131][132] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[130]

  • I propose we change that to:

Former followers are sometimes called "Ex-premies",[18][19][20][21] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[19] According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a "vociferous minority" of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying "his reputation through public denunciation on their website" (ex-premie.org).[22]

  • That makes the "ex-premies" bit less contentious and adds Geaves' scholarly commentary. As for the quotaiton marks, if we're quoting him we should make that clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Two words don't qualify as a quotation; as for the other, longer part, we have the option of rephrasing or adding the quotes as you have done. Otherwise I think I can live with it. Let's see what the other guys and gals say. Jayen466 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On balance, I still think I prefer my earlier version above. Jayen466 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The other draft removes sourced information and gets into other topics which will then need to have more material added to make sure we cover all POVs. I'm not averse to adding the "anticult publicity" part in the proper place, it just isn't this paragraph. Let's keep focused on addressing this one issue. Otherwise we're not going to get consensus and the thread will be pointless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<ec>

  • The quotation marks seem editorial, as though we are passing judgment on what Geaves says, and as per NPOV we shouldn't do that. We are just reporting what sources say. I accept though that the second set is technically required, given the above wording.
  • I don't think the passing press references add much encyclopedic value, and neither does the "disgruntled employees" claim IMO. Here is an alternative version of my earlier proposal without undue verbatims, and without quotes:

    According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, Rawat faces the difficulties of cultural suspicion aimed at new movements, occasioned by decades of anticult publicity in the Western media, and although Rawat himself has not attracted media attention in recent years, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying his reputation by publicly denouncing him on their website (ex-premie.org).

  • But if there is a consensus that we want to keep the existing references in, and the anticult publicity out, could you live with the following?

Former followers are sometimes called "Ex-premies",[18][19][23][24] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[19] According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying Rawat's reputation by publicly denouncing him on their website (ex-premie.org).[25]

I object to giving space to this minority and extreme view.Momento (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Whose view? Geaves? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Some" is a weasel word, and "sometimes" isn't far behind it as a weasel word. There's nothing about Geaves' pov that's neutral and without another realiable source other than Elan Vital to back his up his characterizations of "ex-premies," I don't think Geaves can or should be used in the article for purposes of characterizing ex-premies or former followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviecyn (talk • contribs)

split intermediate thread

  • I'm not opposed to the use of "ex-premies," rather, I'm opposed to Rainer's and Jayen's need for labelling certain peole with the term in such a specific way, which has no scholarly source to back up their negative innuendo. Rawat's followers still call themselves premies, even Rawat calls his devotees premies, but Rainer is correct on one matter, there's a big difference between this nrm's public and private usage. The only "branding" that has been invented (that Rainer tries to explain) is the branding that premies have made up to use negatively to refer to people who are vocal critis. Ex-premies = former followers = former students = former followers = former devoteess, this is for the last time, for goodness sakes! They all mean the same thing. And btw, John and I are the experts on this matter.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of having proposed the inclusion of negative innuendo regarding ex-premies. Jayen466 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Jayen, the negative remarks and innuendo and personal interpretations of who and what ex-premies are, exists right here on this talk page in this section and you said you agree with Rainer. Doesn't matter what you propose for the article, you agree with Rainer's statements, which as usual, are thinly veiled personal attacks. So far, no one's said one word to him about it. If you and other editors here are unable or unwilling to grok this, I don't see how any mediation is helping or going to help in the furture. It takes much too long for someone to take action on personal attacks on this case. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Rainer suggested putting, "A group of former followers have engaged in antagonising Prem Rawat and became known as “Ex-premies”," and I told him that without a RS this was OR – much like the present sentence is OR, since none of our referenced sources actually states what we say. For what I agreed with Rainer on, see my reply above to Will. Jayen466 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for triggering so much dissent. In my mind my proposition carried enough self-evidence to simply improve the present sentence by being more differentiate and informative, without needing a special RS. I also found some of the reactions rather agitated than addressing the logics of the issue. I could live with Jayen’s last proposal, but I also agree with Sylviecyn, that “sometimes” is unnecessarily ambiguous. That was in a way my point to begin with, to closer define this “sometimes”. I am sure it can be improved, I don't insist on my wording. And sorry, I was not aware that an ex-premie feels personally attacked when identified as an ex-premie (I did not even do that!). Actually I like Sylviecyn’s passion and pride (no bait!), and I honestly don’t mean to hurt her. And I don’t mind her continuing to address me by my incomplete username… Hell, this is a discussion and not a law-court! Cheers--Rainer P. (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, quite apart from the above proposal, I just noticed that we twice refer to Geaves' profession and religious affiliation (if we input the above proposal as is, it would actually be three times!). Any objection to removing the repeat reference? (They're both in Reception.) Jayen466 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Former Guru on a Different Mission" in Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998.
  2. ^ a b c d e "Working the web: Cults" in The Guardian, Technology news & features section, p. 4. London, UK, February 13, 2003.
  3. ^ a b c Jones, Rebecca. "Former Guru on a Different Mission" in Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado, January 30, 1998. Available via HighBeam Research
  4. ^ a b c "Blinded by the Light" in Good Weekend, Sydney, Australia, August 31, 2002. Web version (PDF) at rickross.com
  5. ^ United Nations Interim report on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief prepared by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights
  6. ^ Cagan, A. Peace is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press. ISBN 0-9788694-9-4
  7. ^ "The Guru's Wife Is Another Devotee", Robert P. Dalton, AP Staff Writer, Oakland Tribune. May 23, 1974.
  8. ^ Downton, James V. Sacred Journeys. Columbia University Press, 1979. p.191.
  9. ^ "The Guru's Wife Is Another Devotee", Robert P. Dalton, AP Staff Writer, Oakland Tribune. May 23, 1974.
  10. ^ Downton, James V. Sacred Journeys. Columbia University Press, 1979. p.191.
  11. ^ "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune
  12. ^ "The Guru's Wife Is Another Devotee", Robert P. Dalton, AP Staff Writer, Oakland Tribune. May 23, 1974.
  13. ^ Downton, James V. Sacred Journeys. Columbia University Press, 1979. p.191.
  14. ^ Kelley, Ken. "I See The Light: In which a young journalist pushes a cream pie into the face of His Divine Fatness and gets his skull cracked open by two disciples" in Penthouse. July 1974, pp. 98-100, 137-138, 146, 148, 150-151.
  15. ^ "Guru Set For Honor, Gets Pie In Face" in Independent and Press-Telegram. Long Beach, Calif., Sunday, August 8, 1973, p. A-6
  16. ^ "Guru Gets Testimonial And Some Pie in Face" in New York Times. August 8, 1973, p. 43. At NYT website
  17. ^ "Guru Set For Honor, Gets Pie In Face" in Independent and Press-Telegram (UPI). Long Beach, Calif., Sunday, August 8, 1973, p. A-6
  18. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HinduismToday1983 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b c d Keim, Tony. "Police block drive-in protest against guru", Courier Mail, Australia, September 4, 2002.
  20. ^ "Former Guru on a Different Mission", Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998.
  21. ^ Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone No. 156. March 14, 1974, pp. 36-50.
  22. ^ Geaves, Ron (2002), From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: an Exploration of Change and Adaptation, 2002 International Conference on Minority Religions, Social Change and Freedom of Conscience, University of Utah at Salt Lake City
  23. ^ "Former Guru on a Different Mission", Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998.
  24. ^ Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone No. 156. March 14, 1974, pp. 36-50.
  25. ^ Geaves, Ron (2002), From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: an Exploration of Change and Adaptation, 2002 International Conference on Minority Religions, Social Change and Freedom of Conscience, University of Utah at Salt Lake City
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_37&oldid=1235927776"