Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27 Prem Rawat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-27 Prem Rawat

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-27 Prem Rawat

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: PatW 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: Talk:Prem_Rawat

Who's involved?: Followers of Prem Rawat and critics.

What's going on?: The followers assert that the critics are an insignificant tiny minority and thus should be excluded. One editor 'Momento' is removing all the links to the critics sites.

What would you like to change about that?: Since the article liberally links to followers official pages that attack and name these critics, I would like to see their POV at least referenced.

I would like some clarification on Wiki policy with regard to Jimbo Wales' comments that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (which in this case it is). Another 'proud student' of Prem Rawat and Wiki Administrator (Jossi) uses this following comment of J.Wales as justification for removing critics and criticism from the article: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. "

I would like a more neutral third party to read the article and take a quick look at the discussion page. This will quickly establish the gist of the dispute.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: NA
Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

In priciple yes, but not right now.

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

...

[edit] Mediator response

The supporters of Mr.Prem Rawat (Maharaji) contend that the views of the critics do not deserve to be represented/referenced in the article because they "constitute a miniscule group." The critics of Mr.Rawat have put up their own article on their contention on Wikipedia, possibly as a reaction to the deletion of their content on the main article (see Criticism of Prem Rawat). IMO, these two articles belong together, or at least, should be linked together for the sake of integrity of ideas. So, a resolution of the dispute should, in the ideal case, lead to the merger of the two articles. It is my understanding that, starting May 8, 2006, an effort has been launched to do just that.

I have studied this case, comparing the article on Mr.Rawat (Maharaji) with those of other gurus and holymen/women such as Satya Sai Baba and Mata Amritanandamayi. The articles on the latter two do include references to their critics, and at least a gist of their views. So, if the effort that is on, it would improve the uniformity of structure across Wikipedia, an appreciable goal.

A quick (and arguably imprecise) way to test the contention that the critics of Mr.Rawat constitute a miniscule minority would be to see whether their views are represented on articles on Mr.Rawat in other publications/sites. I found that most such articles did include reference to critics (see, for example, Answers.com article on Mr.Rawat). If the supporters of Mr.Rawat want to continue their claim, it would be helpful if they could substantiate their claim.

Meanwhile, I think letting the process launched currently should be encouraged to go forward.

This case has not seen activity since mid-may. Is there still an ongoing mediation? If not, I will close this case due to activity. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am closing this case due to inactivity. Should any further trouble arise, this case will remain on my watchlist (though a note on my talk page would be helpful as well). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.