Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Westernization Section

I removed yet another reference to Rawat piloting his own plane, this time in the Westernization section. This is already discussed under "Other Aspects", and is based solely on an unreliable source (Cagan.) As I discussed under the section for Status of "Peace is Possible", the repeated emphasis on him flying aircraft serves no purpose in his biography other than hagiography (or making him look cool; I don't want to get into word parsing here.) It makes sense to mention once in the article, and we do. Please justify the need for repetition if you disagree.

I am also struck by the hagiography and weak sourcing of the third paragraph in this section. The list of cities and crowds reached is standard advertising or resume language, the type used to aggrandize the subject. The worst offender is the sentence "In December 1998, he spoke live via an interactive satellite broadcast from Pasadena, California to 86,600 participants at 173 locations in 50 countries." It is completely unsourced. Can anyone justify its presence here?

The following line (he began regular satellite broadcasts) is less controversial but also poorly sourced. It references a clearly pro-Rawat website that has no author listed and makes no claim of being self-published by him ("It is our pleasure to help make Maharaji’s message available.") (It has links to the website of Prem Rawat (Maharaji.net), which it identifies as a website he created, to the Prem Rawat Foundation, and to the publisher of Cagan's book on its front page.)

I would like to hear feedback and suggestions, but my opinion is that at least the line about the 1998 satellite broadcast needs to be removed. The WP:BLP policy that Momento and Rumiton are so fond of states quite clearly that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP needs to be removed -- "whether negative, positive, or just questionable".

Again, I urge editors to step back from the subject of this article and look at articles about other, less controversial but estimable speaker/authors, such as Tom Peters, Robert Bly, or Deepak Chopra. None of their pages contains lists of cities attended and crowd sizes, rebuttals to critics, investment strategies or impressive hobbies (like flying airplanes.) They are all shorter and, in my opinion, clearly more encyclopedic. I enjoy parsing WikiPolicy as much as anyone, but given the difficulties we have had reaching agreement on this page, I offer them as a good guidepost for where to take this page. Msalt (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cagan is not an "unreliable source." She is a source perfectly acceptable for uncontentious information. In your "feedback and suggestions" para, I think you might not have noticed the word "contentious." This is the stuff that needs to be removed in a WP:BLP. Ordinary stuff is fine, and it is not contentious that he has spoken internationally by satellite and continues with a very high level of travel and public speaking. But I agree with most of what you say. Short is nice. Much of the effort in the last 12 months, following the good article review, went towards debloating the article, not looking for more stuff to throw in it. But once we got stuck with a criticism section it seemed there had to be some positive things for balance, and then more criticism to balance that. I notice that none of the articles you mention have a criticism section. If they had, you can bet they would have swelled up to 5 times that length. Wikipedia guidelines used to discuss this issue to good effect, but I can no longer find the reference. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. Chopra does have a criticism section. Apart from that my comments stand. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Lots of agreement here, great to see it. However, without endless parsing (not reliable vs. unreliable, etc.), Cagan does not qualify as a reliable source for a BLP. I suggested following Jossi's words of using Cagan for uncontroversial points as a compromise; this follows from the fact that BLP policy strictly prohibits unreliable sources for contentious points, positive or negative. Which implies that unreliable sources may be OK for uncontentious points.
My hope was to sidestep the long thrash about Cagan by making it moot; if she is not used for contentious points, then we don't really need to decide how reliable she is. None of which makes the book any more reliable or verifiable than it is.
As for what is contentious or controversial, look at your own words -- "a very high level of travel and public speaking". This is original research by you, clearly a pro-Rawat statement not supported by an independent, third party source. I don't find the fact that Rawat speaks by satellite contentious, but claiming that he spoke to 83,000 people in X number of countries is an unverified (in fact, unsourced) statement with a clear purpose of presenting him as a highly successful speaker.
None of the articles on the comparable speakers I cited make laudatory claims of that nature. This is why I suggest these claims are POV, not encyclopedic. If you think that Robert Bly or Tom Peters need Criticism sections to fairly represent their notability, then by all means create them! I don't follow either that closely but recall vaguely a fair bit of ridicule at Bly or at least his followers for being silly or pretentious. I'm sure Peters has been accused of trendiness or some such. Anyone holding themselves up as a source of wisdom or insight invites such critiques, and I think that's fair. I say that as a writer who gets a fair bit of criticism myself for my political scandal website. Msalt (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There being no specific objection, I went ahead and deleted the unsourced line about speaking to 86,000 people via satellite in Dec. 1998. While I was in the neighborhood, I shortened the line that followed about satellite broadcasts to say "to North American and other countries." I believe the meaning is unchanged. (Yes I realize that is slightly ungrammatical, but the mistake was there before, just separated by more words.) I also combined his now shorter paragraph with the one that follows -- together they are now a good paragraph size. Msalt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good edit, Msalt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Msalt (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To consider

Per Thatcher's recommendation in the closing of the COI discussion at WP:COI/N However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites., I would appreciate if edits such as this are carefully considered in that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course anti-Rawat activists have similar COI issues to Rawat followers, and we should look at all such edits with sharp eyes. However, while I can understand how the edit you cite would be unpleasant to someone sympathetic to Prem Rawat, I don't think the edit itself is at all unreasonable. The fact that Randi included him in an encyclopedia of supernatural "claims, frauds and hoaxes" IS the main point, rather than the details of the entry. I don't think COI is really the issue here, is it? If I made the same edit, would you be happy with it? Msalt (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would. We do not use the names of books in this article at all, and we should not give undue weight to Randi's opinion by listing the name of his book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did you misspeak, Jossi? I asked if you would be happy with the edit if I made it, since I don't have any COI, and you said yes. I'm happy to go ahead and make the edit, which I think is in fact more accurate. But the rest of what you say implies that you think the opposite. My point being that COI doesn't seem to be the issue, you just don't like the edit, whoever makes it. Am I right about that? Msalt (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I edited the mention so that 1) it's not a COI edit and 2) it puts it in context better. (ie, not just citing the title, but noting that he included him in such an encyclopedia.) Also tightened it up. Msalt (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct Jossi. Naming the book is just away to get around the appalling quote - that Rawat was fat.Momento (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To Momento - I would prefer including both the quote and the name of the book, but is is clear to me that the name of the book is the significant issue here. To Jossi, there is no rule in Wikipedia about not using names of books in articles. In this case it is warranted. Regarding my conflict of interest, where is the conflict? I simply want this article to reflect a little closer the view of Rawat held by pretty much every mainstream newspaper and magazine article writer over the last 37 years as documented at [1] and as ignored by the Prem Rawat Foundation's 'press room' at [2] --John Brauns (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ask User:Thatcher for his reasons to alert you on this aspect. Reputable publications have been used in this article. Sources that refer to the 16-year old Maharaji as a "the world's most overweight midget", or "His Divine Fatness" , or that repeat nonsense such as that "he strips devotees, pours abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administers drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", are obviously not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I disagree with the generaliztion. His behavior as a guru was unusual and considered inappropriate by many sources, inc. reputable ones as the Washington Post. And this can and should be in the article. Andries (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that Randi's book makes all of those statements? If so, then please consider stating such objections directly, rather than couching this as an issue of COI by the editor who wants to name the book. I haven't read Randi's book but if he says all that, then frankly, that would be a much stronger argument against the book anyway. If he didn't say that, then I don't know why you would bring it up, it seems like an inflammatory red herring. Msalt (talk)
You can read the book and its article on Prem Rawat online. Arthur C. Clarke, it would appear from the cover art, only wrote the introduction; the book itself is Randi's. Given that the book appears to contain about a page's worth of ad-hominems and trivial information hoped to be found embarrassing, how notable is it? -- Jayen466 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the link, that is very helpful. It would be great if we could reference web sources for all of these publications. Is there a WP against web links to materials both published on paper and available online? I dropped Arthur Clarke from the text in my edit, described above. However, none of the inflammatory statements that Jossi listed are in there. While the article is certainly very negative, and I think fairly described as ridiculing, I'm not sure that is sufficient reason to remove it as an exemplar of criticism. It also describes events also mentioned in sources on the Prem Rawat: Sources page that are accepted here, and in reasonably fair terms in most cases. I would like to see the opinion of other relatively uninvolved editors on whether to keep this or not. Certainly it would be nice to find a summary of criticisms with a tone that's a bit more fair. Msalt (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There might be a chance of finding something a bit more balanced and informed here. That could be researched and evaluated, and a summary included (to the extent that it comments on his person). This would be preferable in my view to dignifying this somewhat flippant page by Randi with an encylopedic citation. -- Jayen466 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The flippant comments in Randi's book, are hardly encyclopedic, but I would let others assess that. As for the link to JSTOR, note that most, if not all these sources have already been used in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayen, there is every chance of finding more balanced and informed comments. It shows an extraordinary bias that some editors would want to see a sensationalist book by a stage magician become a source for an encyclopedia. Apart from that, editors here are getting COI (Conflict of Interest) confused with POV (Point Of View.) COI exists where the material well-being of an editor is in some way affected by the outcome of the article. POV is just a strongly-held opinion. And Msalt's statement "While the article is certainly very negative, and I think fairly described as ridiculing, I'm not sure that is sufficient reason to remove it as an exemplar of criticism" shows perhaps an unfamiliarity with WP:BLP "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is do no harm." This is a living, breathing person with feelings, not a philosophical concept. Rumiton (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you're right about WP:COI vs. POV, and am inclined to go with Jossi and Thatcher on this one. I don't see anything about "material well-being" in the policy; it's about promoting "your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." Those interests can be ideological, religious, political, or whatever. Msalt (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, do no harm can also be interpreted in a completely opposite way: to present an unbalanced positive article of Prem Rawat harms his (potential) followers and students. Andries (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I must still beg to differ. The Oxford Dictionary gives several meanings for "interest", from the most common "concern, curiosity" to the sense that I believe is clear here: "title, right, pecuniary stake." The first examples given on WP:COI are "quoting from your own book", "direct financial reward", "involvement in a court case" and "promoting (other)commercial or private sites". These are all monetary factors. Then we have "close friendship with the subject" and "involvement with a promotional organisation". With respect, I believe your suggestion that "ideological, religious, political" views constitute a COI is mistaken. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ideological, religious, and political interests are not the same thing as ideological, religious, or political views. I don't think anyone other than yourself has expressed the view that a devotee of a guru (or an embittered ex-devotee) lacks a conflict of interest. User Thatcher made it clear that both devotees and ex-devotee activists have conflicts of interest. Indeed, Jossi declared that he had a conflict of interest in this case, which was key to making his involvement here appropriate. The wording of WP:COI is clear. The fact that many of the examples involve monetary gain doesn't add phrases to the policy. And as you note, there are examples with no monetary involvement at all, notably "involvement with a promotional organisation" which seems to apply to most editors here (broadening it to include antagonistic organizations). Msalt (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If we all have Conflicts of Interest we should not be editing the content of the article. Interests are not the same as views? I think you are stretching (or "broadening" if you like), this defn too far. I am not a member of Elan Vital or TPRF. As far as I know, neither of them have any members. I don't do work for them. I am not the subject's "best friend." I am not getting paid by anyone. That is the extent of the categories in WP:COI. Why do you suggest I have a conflict of interest? Rumiton (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, I am in broad agreement with you. However, the subject being alive should not even have to enter into consideration. If we are writing an encyclopedia, we should use academic sources wherever they are available, in preference over journalistic accounts and what could be termed "popular science". -- Jayen466 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayen, thank you for your level-headed and mature contributions, not to mention the elegance of their expression. The subject being alive does need to come into our consideration, not so much in kind as in degree. The requirements for reputability in sourcing and neutrality of article expression, the need to eliminate undue weight and extraordinary claims are not different from those for other Wikipedia articles, they are just a lot more rigorously applied. WP:BLP says it all, in spirit as well as in letter. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am broadly familiar with WP:BLP, though certainly not to the extent that many others here are. (What's the provision on adherence to the law in Florida all about?) And I have already stated that I personally would prefer a less snarky source.
However, Rumiton, I think you are implying that BLP prevents any substantial criticism of living persons, and I don't believe that is true. Randi's book cites several facts also documented by sources accepted as verifiable on this page in judging Rawat as belonging in his encyclopedia. It's certainly better to mention the book and not quote the ridiculing language, so the article is already better than earlier today. Let's keep looking for a better source, rather than disparaging each other's knowledge of WP rules. Msalt (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not mean to disparage. You are quite right, criticism that is very well sourced should be acknowledged, but not in the lip-licking way that some would like to see. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for removing the text of Galanter's quote. I found the description in the book.Momento (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article probation - proposal --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Photo

The intrinsic value and gorgeous elegance of the stub

How about I go ahead and reduce this article to the bare minimum, strictly the bones, neither promotional nor critical. Then we can all get on with the lives we used to have. Huh? Can we? Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, in my humble opinion we have been collectively moving in that direction through a (slightly choppy but emerging) consensus. I've come in as one of several outside (uninvolved) editors to move that way, but I find it advisable to move a step at a time, explain what I'm going to do in advance wherever possible, discuss it at length and talk more after each individual move. I've written half of a novel in a week about these issues. Even so, I'm sure there are some who feel I'm moving too fast or unilaterally.
Given that you have been in the thick of these edit wars for some time and are clearly identified with one side, I humbly suggest that it would be a terrible idea for you to unilaterally rewrite the whole page with a line and a half of advance notice. I think it would destroy everything we have accomplished here lately, and lead some to think that such destruction was your aim. Msalt (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Msalt.
For Rumiton, there's always the possibility to follow the technique explained in Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses, point 6 in order to present your proposed rewrite. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I really like that idea. Rumiton, I would enjoy seeing (on a separate page) a draft of what you have in mind. It may be great. but let's move a little deliberately here. Msalt (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you, Momento, Jossi, Rainer P and I all go and get on with our lives and let more neutral editors do whatever they feel is best here? Now that would be the perfect solution! Hey, if you guys drop it I'll go too. That's a promise! PatW (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article has lately altogether been improved in neutrality, even if it will take some more work. And I can say I am persistently learning about how to write an encyclopedic article, and I even find working role models here and there for civil manners. So, even if we might not ever reach a final agreement over the article, it is a very rewarding experience for me, and I feel a surprising growing relatedness to all you fellow editors out there, no matter under what flag. So, let's not drop it, but accept the challenge. That seems to be the life at least I wish to have. Cheerio!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Rainer, it is nice that you are having a constructive experience here, but after 12 months of this I find much more fascinating things are beckoning me. I will start work on the dramatically reduced example tomorrow. Deliberately. Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this. But then there are signs that Eds. Francis Schonken and Msalt are really motivated to improve the article, and they will probably face a lot of the load you tried to carry, after getting familiar with its unique mental environment. And remember: "Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach." -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)--Rainer P. (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I respect you as an opponent in argument enough not to attempt to disguise my moderate pleasure at how you appear to be retreating in defeat and attempting some sort of 'Parthian shot'. I would discourage you from wasting further time developing any personalised model for a minimal article though of course you are at liberty to do so. This article is now being shaped, as it always should have been, by the 'emerging consensus' that MSalt talks about. If you don't find this process fascinating then it may be better indeed to turn your attention to the more 'fascinating things that beckon'. I wonder what they could be? :-) PatW (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects are relevant

Let's take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spirituality#Scope:

This WikiProject aims to promote better coordination, content distribution, balance and cross-referencing among pages covering topics of spirituality, as well as pages on topics that can be compared or contracted with spirituality. All of these articles should be placed within the Category:Spirituality or one of its subcategories.

Most certainly relevant. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism is also highly relevant, due to the skepticism surrounding Rawat's claimed benefits from his secretive "Techniques of Knowledge". Cirt (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If the "Skepticism" project tag is applied due to the teachings of Rawat then it would be more appropriate to add it to the teachings of Prem Rawat article. Rawat himself has little or nothing to do with skepticism that I can see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have yet to find a published source that forwards any kind of skepticism surrounding Rawat's claimed benefits from his secretive "Techniques of Knowledge". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

External links section...

I've grouped all EL discussions --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all those links official websites of Prem Rawat as stated? Most appear to be independent. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "official" is but they are operated by people or organizations that have permission to use Rawat's speeches.Momento (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But not run by him. Maybe that sub title is not really required? It seems to be a hold over from when there was another section of links. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right.Momento (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

... contain links that are in contradiction with Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly which prong the links are in contradiction with? I don't see any contradiction with the stated guidelines. Simply claiming that the links are in contradiction with Wikipedia Policy is not adequate. Onefinalstep (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you are continually deleting my external link submission?

On the External Links page of Wikipedia under the subsection “Links to be Considered” of section “What to Link” you will find that “sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources” are permissible.

Moreover, the sites I am attempting to link to, which Momento continues to arbitrarily delete (have you sent him a warning yet jossi?), can arguably be said to be reliable sources in their own right. The two sites have documentation on many of their claims, and hold themselves out for contact by the users of the sites. Under the section of “reliable sources” Wikipedia states that “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.” However … the section goes on to state that “Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.”

So first, it is debatable whether or not the sites are reliable. I say they most certainly are. Unless there is a valid argument from Momento to the contrary, why should they be omitted? Secondly, even if I am wrong about their reliability based on “verifiability” of the facts they present (which I contest), they should still be considered “reliable sources” by the definition of the Wikipedia guidelines I quoted above due to their value in presenting viewpoints and criticisms of the subject at hand, especially due to the religious nature of the subject. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: it's a guideline, not a policy, and it contains the words normally and should. It's also not very clear. I have no idea what the first sentence, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. means.
In any case, the person who dinged the link should explain why, preferrably without c&p'ing a link to a guideline. After all, if the link did violate the guideline, it'd be nice to know why so the "error" isn't repeated. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The external links to the other sites have been deleted, simply because they do not follow Wikipedia BLP policy, which is quite clear: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Whilst I have rarely agreed with Andries in the past, this item is not a matter of argument, the links simply violate the criteria that Wikipedia requires. Armeisen (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs)

The sites are not poorly sourced. I guess everyone needs to make their own judgment on that though. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, although it should have come from someone else. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By website

Prem Rawat's official website 
'Maharaji', Prem Rawat's personal website. Available in 16 languages.
  • No problem to include the website. I'd change the presentation though: "Maharaji Official site of Prem Rawat", while "Official site of Prem Rawat" is what it currently says in the title tag - no need to add another interpretation. As this is English Wikipedia, the number of languages seems quite irrelevant to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Voice of Maharaji 
Excerpts from recent addresses
Ex-premie.org 
Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is a cult Website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat
  • I'd keep that one in the article. Contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. I'd limit the sentence describing this website to "website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat". The "cult claim" is too detaillistic: it is treated on one of the pages linked from the main page of that site, but that's a too limited angle on that website for Wikipedia's description imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is fine. The link is appropriate because it leads to a site which is maintained by former followers who obviously have some serious issues with the organization. They have loads of sources for their claim on the site, and they hold themselves out for contact. I can't comprehend why people are trying to argue this is not relevant. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: 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. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "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". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • As explained above and below (#External links disputes) this reading of BLP is essentially flawed. The fact that the text quoted from WP:BLP is not an example of clarity doesn't help either, and I don't agree with one-sided interpretations. Further, it is not yet demonstrated by far that this source is a "questionable source or a source of dubious value" --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • If BLP policy isn't clear to you [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], perhaps you can discuss your concerns at [[6]]. In the meantime we will abide by it.Momento (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Prem-Rawat-critique.org 
Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing the mass of criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations
  • I'd keep that one in too. Also contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. But I'd turn down the language with which the site is announced: "mass of criticism" is a view that we do not need to underline. "Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations" would do better I think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are right here too. Perhaps the "mass of criticism" is too much (although I think it's accurate). Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: 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. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "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". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • As explained above and below (#External links disputes) this reading of BLP is essentially flawed. The fact that the text quoted from WP:BLP is not an example of clarity doesn't help either, and I don't agree with one-sided interpretations. Further, it is not yet demonstrated by far that this source is a "questionable source or a source of dubious value" --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • If BLP policy isn't clear to you [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], perhaps you can discuss your concerns at [[7]]. In the meantime we will abide by it.Momento (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Register article 
'Lord of the Universe' Article detailing about Prem and the controversy of conflict of interest in Wikipedia.
  • Largely irrelevant to the topic at hand (Prem Rawat). I'd get rid of that one. The Prem Rawat article is not an exercise on Wikipedian introspection. This talk page maybe is in part, but not the encyclopedia article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
prem-rawat-maharaji.info 
Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource
  • Would like to know whether others would think this a useful resource. It appears as such to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This site violates BLP. The policy is absolutely explicit - "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". This site is an derogatory and uses unreliable OR to defame Rawat. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy? I'm removing it immediately.Momento (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, Momento. The statement "if derogatory, should not be used" applies to "questionable sources or sources of dubious value," and we aren't talking about any questionable sources or sources of dubious value. I've been on a few pages there, today, as a result of this discussion, and I can't find anything that isn't true. If it's true, it isn't defamatory. The site requests anyone finding inaccurate material to notify them so that it can be removed. What inaccuracies have you warned them about, Momento? This is really a question of criticism of a flawed product or service by dissatisfied consumers. There have been serious quality control issues in the past. Different "mahatmas" gave different instructions. After ten months of dedicated practice, I assure you that the techniques, as presented to me, are harmful both by themselves and because they distract aspirants from other "meditation" techniques which actually do have more value for most people, but I'm not proposing to list myself as an expert for the article -- just for this discussion. This has nothing to do with BLP. There are hundreds of practices labeled "meditation," many of them cataloged in The Book of Secrets by Rajneesh, some of which have specific benefits in specific situations. Potential consumers have a right to be warned about the dangers of Rawatism. Such a warning is extremely valuable to people seeking beneficial practices. It keeps them from reinventing the wheel. Wowest (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The home page of this website says:

          The authors of this website have gone to great efforts to create an objective and broad-ranging account of Prem Rawat and his movement. It is not our intention to attack him or his followers, or in any way restrict their right of religious freedom. Rather these pages provide a point of reference for both journalists and those who are interested in the activities and philosophy of Mr. Rawat and the organizations that support and promote him.

          Is any of this demonstrably wrong? If so, please: "The authors welcome corrections to any inaccuracies that may have inadvertently been applied to the website's content", there's contact information available on the website, to send such proposed corrections to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The vast majority of this site is self published OR that isn't verifiable. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. It is unacceptable in terms of OR, Verifiability and BLP. And it is alsoderogatory. I'll let Msalt remove it, he seems to know what he's doing.Momento (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the compliment! I haven't had time to look at it, and I need some sleep. Bsides, it looks like you deleted it already. But I do want to mention something about original research, Momento. You've criticized a couple of websites for having OR. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, that's precisely what we look for in our Verifiable sources. The whole point is that WE don't do original research, but rely on strong external sources. They do the OR so we don't have to. Msalt (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
            • On the contrary, your accusation of OR seems quite out of line. I just took a random page of that website: http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=23 After the intro on that page:
              1. 1st paragraph: no references, but general info (which can also be found in the Wikipedia Prem Rawat article, Prem Rawat#Childhood)
              2. 2nd paragraph: content referenced to Elan Vital
              3. 3rd paragraph and 4-paragraph quote: referenced to Academic specialist in the 'Rhadasoami tradition' Professor David Lane of California State University.
              4. 1st paragraph after the quote: referenced to former US Divine Light Mission President, Bob Mishler
              5. next paragraph: referenced to Prem Rawat himself; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                • I've just remembered, BLP Policy sats : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space". That means every editor is obliged to remove this link. So I have.Momento (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • And where is your demonstration that this is "questionable", or whatever derogatory statement you're making? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • Do you really believe that a self-published anonymously written website become a "reliable source" by including a few quotes from real scholars? Find me a "reliable" and "verifiable source" for this derogatory claim "Rawat's right-hand men in the sixteen years between 1971 and 1987 were Bob Mishler and Michael Dettmers both have described him as an 'alcoholic' giving descriptions of carrying him up the stairs unconscious, after a night's heavy drinking at his home. Both detailed Rawat's abusive rages when under the influence of alcohol.".Momento (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Seems perfectly in line with:

                        Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982: "[...] In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."

                        --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • How about this "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued." [[8]].Momento (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • The source was Michael Dettmers. There's no problem linking to a website that is a publisher of something Michael Dettmers said. Afaik Wikipedia does not use that bit of information. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this website further, I fail to see how or why it's a BLP violation to link to it. Anything contentious appears sourced. It's clearly an indepth, notable, and independent source not under Rawat's control. We are perfectly within our bounds to link to a source like this, that I can see. Lawrence § t/e 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, the site owners remain anonymous: [9] [10] [11] Could I sue the site owners like I could sue a publisher for publishing defamatory information? If the answer to the question is no (and I think it is), then that means the site does not have enough encyclopedic standing to be used as an external link. The reason being that whoever posts the information is not in practice prepared to vouch for its accuracy; if the same information could be found in a printed book, with a named publisher and author, it would be a different matter. -- Jayen466 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The website appears DMCA compliant (which includes OCILLA), ([12], see June 2005 entries on that page) which means you could sue the site owners.

It also appears to vouch for its accuracy (see same page [13], July 28th, 2005 entry). Sorry, no problem there. And the Internic link mentioned above,[14] also shows adresses and other means to contact the site owners, if you're not satisfied by the e-mail addresses provided by the website itself [15]. Sorry, really, no problem there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion on the Admin Noticeboard was archived [[16]] two independent editors had the following to say about theprem-rawat-maharaji.info link.
I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So I'm removing it. BLP policy is clear - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material".Momento (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

W.r.t. Relata refero's and ThuranX's considerations:

  • Who runs this website? — see above: the website is DMCA compliant, the people running it are answering concerns (I gave the link that proves it).
  • Does it have some form of editorial control? – yes, see above and previous question.
  • What is its reputation for fact-checking? – appears OK, see above, I gave the link.
  • Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? – don't know, not a RS requirement (also: circular reasoning: of course this source has been quoted in multiple sources: whether or not these other sources are RS is independent of whether this source is a RS).
  • There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. – rebutted, see above.
  • the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained – not sure whether ThuranX was looking at the same source: didn't see no 'interviews' on the source we're talking about, could you point me to one?
  • random information attributed to the persons mentioned. – cheap thrill, does this need an answer?
  • He doesn't state when he talked to them, – unclear remark.
  • some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy – still not knowing what you're talking about, "'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy"?
  • ...the rest of ThuranX's conclusions appear to be based on his/her own original research, and can be waived as such.

Still, no BLP infringement demonstrated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be surprised about Francis position on this. By Francis arguments there is no such a thing as an anonymous website. The site is anonymous which does not allow the verification of authorship, there mo editorial control of fact checking that is known of; contains essay-type material nd other non-notable commentary, ; it is unverifiable. Contains material the violates BLP. Basically, exactly the type of site we should not link per Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people. Still no compliance with policy has been demonstrated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No idea why you keep linking to places that contain no definition of "questionable sources or sources of dubious value", is it perhaps in order to hide that there is no such requirement about non-anonimity for what Wikipedia regards as acceptable sources? If the source contains only content that is not attributed to other sources I'd agree, you'd have point. But in this case as I demonstrated above this website is quite clear of its sources, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence. Also, there is no such thing as "verification of authorship" imposed by WP:V (or any other content policy). Note that this website lists the sources for its content (whether persons or publications), I'm sure in much more detail than Cagan does – what more to ask?
There is editorial control and fact checking, as I demonstrated above. If you're not reading any of it, that's your problem not mine.
"contains essay-type material nd other non-notable commentary" – your OR, again, not worth rebutting. Even if it would contain "essay-type material", what's your problem? Wikipedia can (and does amply) use essays (and what looks likes them) as reference material.
"it is unverifiable" – WP:V nowhere speaks that we're in the business of verification of any external source. No OR, remember, and "verifiability, not truth", which *also* means we're not in the business of establishing the truth of external sources. Wikipedia's content should be verifiable against external sources. These external sources should be reliable, among several other criteria required from such sources, per Wikipedia's guidance. The verifiability of such external sources themselves is however no part of such criteria used by Wikipedia: it's simply none or our business.
"Contains material the violates BLP" – no it doesn't. Strictly speaking, that's even nonsense what you're saying there. BLP is an in-Wikipedia criterion. The external source itself can neither "adhere" to it nor "violate" it. It uses its own criteria, and that's not for us to decide. What we decide on is whether we link to it or not. In order to link to it, we check against our in-Wikipedia criteria whether the source is eligible for such use. And then there's no WP:BLP violation when linking to it.
Note also I don't have to "prove" there's no OR on that website, even with OR on it it can be a perfectly admissable external link. Note that WP:NOR does not even reject primary sources for sourcing content on Wikipedia, and even less secondary sources containing OR. As it happens, I've not really seen OR being published by that website, seen the abundant citations of external references on that site. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that we all have eloquently presented their arguments about this, and we have to agree to disagree. The only way to resolve this, would be to seek additional input from non-involved editors, such as the two editors that commented already at WP:ANI via WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's about content, not eloquence. I know you meant no harm, yet I'm declining the compliment for that reason. If anyone has content to add, please feel free. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I am not an expert on the policy here. I would be very curious to hear you answer the following question: can a BLP EVER link to a website that criticizes the subject of the article? It looks like you might say no, and Francis clearly says yes, and has detailed why he thinks this website qualifies. If you think it can, could you provide an example of an acceptable but critical website, either for Rawat or for any other living person? I think this would go a long way toward clarifying this issue. Thanks, Msalt (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. You can have a link to a critical site of the subject of the article, with the provisos explained in WP:EL, and WP:BLP namely: (a) [avoid] links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.; (b) [avoid linking to] any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research; (c) Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (questionable sources: See Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.). For example, see Criticism_of_George_W._Bush#External_links for appropriate ELs in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ThuranX did not yet clarify his/her comments, do we still need to wait?
  2. Ad Jossi's,
    • (a): neither a blog nor a personal webpage;
    • (b): not misleading, nor by factually inaccurate material, nor by unverifiable research;
    • (c):
      • fact-checking, appears OK, per above;
      • not widely acknowledged as extremist;
      • not promotional in nature;
      • not relying heavily on rumors;
      • not relying heavily on personal opinions - it does rely less on personal opinion than an average website on a religious or philosophical topic;
      • "Articles about such sources", not applicable to the context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is a personal web page, of an anonymous non-expert in the field
  2. Misleading and/or unverifiable opinion
  3. No fact checking that can be spoken of
  4. Relays on personal opinion, unsourced to reliably published material
We have covered that many times already, and we have opinions of uninvolved editors supporting these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "we have opinions [...] supporting these arguments": Well, "opinions" is all we have, four opposing opinions in total:

  1. Opinions of "uninvolved editors", gathered through forum shopping:
    1. Relata refero's opinion: maybe not even totally "uninvolved" (Relata takes part in several discussions here, from before that WP:ANI opinion). Anyway, Relata's arguments were rebutted by me. If Relata thinks I was inefficient on the rebuttal, s/he's free to explain why.
    2. ThuranX's opinion was based on thoroughly unclear grounds. I asked ThuranX to clarify. Appears clarification is not forthcoming.
  2. Jossi's opinion: (1) flawed, should probably be rejected on COI grounds: I asked Jossi to clarify his situation w.r.t. the websites he doesn't object to be included in the EL section, since it was alleged he was their webmaster. No clarification seems to be forthcoming. (2) Jossi's actual arguments: rebutted. All he seems to be keeping to is an opinion in the face of evidence.
  3. Momento's opinion: well, indeed, opinion, no demonstrable policy conflict (as Momento alleged) however, that has been rebutted multiple times.

So, we're at opinions, and, for instance, wikipedia:consensus as a way to deal with opinions. And that page is policy too.

There are several supporting opinions, let's concentrate on these. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

dmoz search query 
Prem Rawat, at Open Directory Project
  • I'm not in favour of keeping this one in: of the 17 links listed on that page only four are in English. Of these four, two have been rejected already, and two are under discussion here. Generally, it is to be avoided to link to a website that launches a search query (e.g. we don't link to a search query in Google books by way of external link), it sort of defeats the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I would enocurage editors to take the advice of User:Thatcher:[17]

To the extent that prem-rawat-critique analyzes the wikipedia article, it might be useful as a guide for editors looking to improve the article, but it is certainly not a reliable source for use in the article itself. However, no surprises that an anti-Prem web site thinks the article is not negative enough. The next step is for someone to try and fix the articles on wikipedia, consistent with policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, undue weight, and so forth. Thatcher 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, these links violate WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links If editors believe that these constrains are not acceptable, they should bring these issues to WT:BLP first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we know you think the links are questionable sources. Lets have that discussion. But would you concede that assuming they are reliable sources they are not of dubious value? Onefinalstep (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "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". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued below #External links disputes --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links disputes

Links like these:

Keep getting added and deleted. Could editors please use this talk page to discuss which external links should be added or deleted rather than simply edit warring over them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have written many times on these pages and as I wrote in the edit summary, those links are in direct violation of BLP policy. Please make yourself familiar with BLP policy. It says - "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. 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". Further "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy".

I have pointed out this policy many times.Momento (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this getting anywhere between Momento and I. I think this needs to be fleshed out in exactly the same way the photo has; namely, by allowing a large number of people to comment on their worth for inclusion. I don't feel like laying out my same tired argument again in yet another external links thread. Jossi, since you know what the hell goes on with these types of disputes, would you mind making a suggestion (unrelated to whether the links should be kept) on how to resolve this? Onefinalstep (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording of WP:BLP is quite unambiguous, and editors have already discussed this (see Thatcher's comment above: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Discussion.) If there are still disputes, you may need to pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, these links are not reliable sources (per WP:RS). However information within them that are sourced from RS', will be suitable -- If it comes from RS'. Just like in any BLP. --Shot info (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Onefinalstep: please note that you are in violation of WP:3RR, that states that: The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.
  1. 05:57, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  2. 23:30, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  3. 16:31, 11 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  4. 00:14, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
You may want to consider self-reverting to avoid getting dinged, and pursue dispute resolution instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the guy who keeps deleting them with no discussion? I mean, both Momento and I are at odds and are the only ones continually deleting/adding them ... I'll accept some sort of non biased intermediary, but until something is suggested why should I be the one to back down? Onefinalstep (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR is strange as you are using it anyway. It always is in favor of the first reverter. If I put something up, and momento deletes it, I will naturally reach my three reverts before he does. This is an arbitrary way of deciding if the links should stay up or not while the debate goes on.

Certain people keep saying that the links are to sites that are spam sites, blatant copyright infringements, or "questionable sources". I think we need to have a discussion on what exactly "questionable sources" means for ELs. The sites I want on the links section are not "questionable sources." They would be questionable sources if they held themselves out as something they are not. But the sites are very clear in what they are. If the links were to a page that purported to be an official page of Prem Rawat, and it was dubious that it in fact was an "official" page, then yes I would say this is a "questionable source." But these pretty well organized and run websites which don't seem unreliable. I might not use them as source material in an article, but only because they are secondary sources. But they do have their own documentation on their sites. The sites are on the same level of dubiousness as Wikipedia. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


A) External links are not the same as reliable sources. B) WP:BLP says that external links in biographies must comply with WP:EL. WP:EL says that we may not link to copyright violations or to spam sites. It makes further suggestions on which sites should not be linked, but it does not ban linking to them. If a compelling case can be made for linking to the sites then BLP does not prohibit them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, BLP also says: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please follow the wikilink in that text, for more info about what questionable sources are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2, chill out Jossi) Ah yes, apologies, I thought the links were being used as references, rather than just as a true "EL", however (as Jossi points out) BLP applies in BLP. Moral is, need a better link :-) --Shot info (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence from WP:BLP isn't clear. We're not using these links as a source, so they aren't "questionable sources". We aren't adding any information from them to the article, so I'm not sure that the sentence from BLP applies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear to me, Will. The wording speaks to the core of this debate. Maybe you want to take this to WT:BLP if not clear? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Back onto the merits of the particular ELs, given the general low quality of the existing ELs (which seem to just link to equally dubious quality ELs), I am of the opinion that a review of all the ELs is required. Because if some of the existing ELs stay, then those proposed have some validity - using "dubious" as a quality measure. Shot info (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This element of the WP:BLP appears to have been under frequent, and even recent, debate.[18] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In any case, could proponents of the links stop re-adding them until there's a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the issue to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#External links on Prem Rawat. Hopefully, outside comment will help resolve the issue. Vassyana (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the current links, as of this moment:

Of these, only the first appears to be the subject's official site. Some of the others are covered in articles on those specific topics (TPRF and Techniques of Knowledge). Others appear to be anonymous fan sites and blogs. In order to minimze the edit warring over external links, I propose that we delete all but the first one. Are there any reasons why we have to keep the rest of them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already proposed pairing down the EL section, but note that none of the sites are fansites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If they're not Prem Rawat's official sites then what are they? Who owns and runs the websites? If they belong to Elan Vital then they should be in the Elan Vital article (and maybe there already). I assumed that they are run by followers/students/practitioners, but if they are also owned by Rawat then we should say so. If they're not we should remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Will, thanks for starting yet a third (or fourth?) concurrent talk page section about the same links.

As far as I'm concerned the following should be kept:

  • Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is destructive
  • Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources
    • Prem Rawat Critique Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations

...for reasons I gave above: #External links section... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And as far as I am concerned these should not be kept: Wikipedia:BLP#External_links and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is bad English. Sorry. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ..." I understand. That means, don't put that material in the article. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ... as an external link" is some sort of gibberish. An external link does not imply one uses the material. No material that is solely available via ex-premie.org or prem-rawat-critique.org is used. If the quoted sentence of that policy page isn't clear we're not required to second-guess about its "true" meaning, that would be OR.
Linking to many websites implies linking to a website that may have a blog, or a forum where people that are not "experts" in the discussed domain may take part. None of these links are RSs. Scott Adams' Blog (where anyone can post a reply, and which can contain some inane critique of Scott Adams) is linked from the external links section of the Scott Adams article. There is no BLP issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence reads quite clearly to me, Francis. I guess that we will have to agree to disagree, and request additional feedback from other editors. There is a thread at WP:BLP/N about this already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author, and that is why is permissible per WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author": no, more than 90% of that website are clueless rants, not by Scott Adams (and even less by Dilbert) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the "pro" sites have the appearance of blogs or self-published sites. In particular, http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ is formatted like a blog and has no ownership or authorship information that I can find. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That site, has a copyright message at the bottom right (© The Prem Rawat Foundation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't show up on my screen, but I'll take your word for it. Since we have an article about the Foundation, that link should be in that article. Prem Rawat doesn't own or even sit on the board of the Foundation so it appears to be an entirely independent entity. Who do the other websited belong to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is there ... just scroll all the way to the bottom, on the right sidebar. The Prem Rawat Foundation carries his name, and perform activities related to Prem Rawat under his auspices. Their 2006 audited annual report says Activities performed by the Foundation which promote and disseminate the speeches, writings, music, and art of Prem Rawat and support public forums and humanitarian initiatives. [19], so that may be grounds for inclusion. The other sites have information about their owners, you can check these if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what formal relationship exists between Rawat and the Foundation, if any. "Auspices" just means "kindly endorsement". Since we have an article on the TPRF why do we need to duplicate them here? Regarding the other sites, what do they add to this article and are they all of "high quality"? Gettig back to my proposal, I think we'd have more peace if we restricted the links to just the one official site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have commented on this issue just enough to make my point. I will leave this to others to comment as well. External links should be made available in accordance to Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you object ot removing all the sites except for the one official site of Prem Rawat? Does anyone else want to defend individual sites? If not then, for the future stability of this article, I think it'd be best to delete them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You could try it, Will, and see if it sticks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to get an explicit consensus first, but since you don't object and no one else does either I could take that as an implicit consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What's with http://contactinfo.net? This article isn't about the Elan Vital movement, so contacts among EV members appear off topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that site belongs to the "Elan Vital movement", but I agree that it is not needed here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the link to his personal site only, removing all others. This article is about Prem Rawat and is well-referenced. With an article of this quality, the external links section should include his official site, links to articles that could be used in the future as sources (ie they meet WP:RS, are on-topic, and provide unique information not already covered), and links to other media that meet the very highest quality criteria (links to video, audio, etc that record notable events, etc). --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, and some support, for deleting the additinal links I've gone ahead and done so. I hope that editors on all sides of this issue will find this to be an acceptable compromise and not edit war any more over them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to remove, sorry. The only one I'd tentatively allow to have removed is the contactinfo.net, it's more about the organisation than about the person. I was waiting till I could see any logic connecting to actual Wikipedia policies that would justify such removals. I don't see any in what Will, Jossi and others explained here. Also my vocal opposition was simply ignored in commentaries provided by Will, Jossi and others. It's not because you ignore it, that it isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy that I was involing was "consensus". In other words, we've got to find something we can all agree on. The external links section has been a battleground. As a compromise I suggested removing virtually all links. Now that youu've taken it on yourself to restore them you'r assuming responsibility for defending their presence. Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "please defend the addition of the links" - I did, above, I gave the link to the section where I did. For those external links not mentioned there, additionaly, I think we should have 5 to 10 external links, to the *best* available resources on Prem Rawat, where *best* means, not discriminating between links to websites that contain criticism or not. The guiding principle is rather: can you find useful information on Prem Rawat on the website.
Re. "The external links section has been a battleground." - I'm not impressed by those trying to make it a battleground. If you think the behaviour of those trying to make it into a battleground is unacceptable, e.g. RfC can be tried, otherwise, take to ArbCom, if other means to come to an agreement have been exhausted.
Re. "As a compromise I suggested ..." - I really cannot see how this is a "compromise", and even less, how this could be an acceptable compromise, in view of WP:NPOV.
Re. "Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already." - For example, sources listed at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm would on average count as RSses in Wikipedia, they contain information not yet in the article; http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ contains (at least, but there is more) the look and feel of the message Prem Rawat wants to spread, something that's hardly possible to capture in a tertiary source like Wikipedia (at least for copyright reasons). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two that seem particularly unnecessary:

This site is already linked from the article as a ciation, so there's no need to link it again the extrnal links section, plus we have multiple internal links pointing to a whole article on the topic.

This is just a subpage of the "Maharaji.net" offical site. As a side note, we also include an external link to it in the text which is frowned upon in WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I looking at the reverts in this section, it is obvious that there is no consensus forming about what to include and what to exclude. Unless we can find a suitable compromise that we can all live with, we will need to pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:MEDIATION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "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". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and I agree that some Websites have to be deleted. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I find it extraordinary that the is any doubt about the unsuitability of the anti-Rawat websites.Momento (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Prem Rawat Critique and Ex-Premie.org . With the edit war going on the need for them is greater as critique tend to get mutated into oblivion by some follower of Prem Rawat. Look at Reverend_Moon for another BLP with links to websites of critics. Epiteo (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've revived the discussion by website, above #By website --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no rebuttal to my assertion above that
Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I also see no rebuttal to my assertion above about Ex-Premie.org & Prem Rawat Critique, Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees.Momento (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there's been substantial discussion of those links and it would not be appropriate to say that there's any consensus, implicit or explicit, regarding them. Also, I notice that some user(s) is relying on a shifting IP to continue deleting the links in what appears to be an attempt to circumvent 3RR. If it continues I'll ask for the page to be semi-protected, and possibly also ask for a checkuser to see of it's being done by a registered user. It's very disruptive to edit war. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need consensus Will Beback. As an admin you should be familiar with BLP policy. And in the case of BLP, it says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". As yet no one has produced an argument why this article should be exempt from Wikipedia policy. In the meantime this article "must be written conservatively". I've have deleted the links in accordance with "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."Momento (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is it? You say above that you're going to delete because no one disgrees (which is certainly incorrect), then you say it doesn't matter if they disagree or not. Is it you who are deleting the links as an unregistered IP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Will Beback, I didn't say I am "going to delete because no one disagrees", I wrote "Should be deleted". Please do not puts words into my mouth. As an admin you have a responsibility to follow Wikipedia policy.Momento (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the big difference is between what I wrote and what you wrote, or why it matters. I suggest you work towards resolution rather than picking fights. It's the responsibility of every user to follow Wikipedia policy. You haven't answered my question - are you the user who has been deleting the links while logged out? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
First you incorrectly stated that I said that I was "going to delete" the link, when in fact I was making the same comment as you, that the link "should be deleted". And now you accuse me of picking fights because I object to your misrepresentation. And I'm not deleting the links as an unregistered IP?Momento (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you wrote that they "should be" deleted, then you deleted them. I said you wrote that you were going to delete them. Why are you picking a fight over that negligible "misrepresentation"? How does this bring us closer to resolution on this topic? I'm glad you're not the editor who's intentionally hiding his or her identity to delete material. I hope that every editor will act in a straighforward manner and bring their disagreements to talk pages rather than engaging in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not continue to misrepresent me. I wrote "should be deleted" at 23:22 [[20]] when the link had already been deleted by another editor. And I did not delete the links until after you put them back in at 23:25 [[21]]. Your continual and deliberate misrepresentation of my actions is a personal attack, see [[22]]. Stop it. Do not characterize my correction of your misinformation as "picking a fight", it is an editor's duty to correct false and misleading claims. The link issue is resolved by application of BLP.Momento (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion of links to the critical websites under #By website above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

As this discussion has not led to a suitable compromise, I think that it is timely to seriously consider WP:MEDIATION, as the next step in dispute resolution. We could add the EL dispute, the Cagan book dispute and other items about which we have been unable to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)you do not participate,

I suggest that mediation is appropriate on this matter. I also suggest that it would be best if it were limited to people who are actively editing the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually was not interested in participating in the mediation, Will. I was merely making that suggestion. One concern with mediation is that some of the disputes revolve around to what several editors believe are violation of policies, and mediation may not be able to help with that. But it is a necessary step, I think, and it may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Being new here, I can't tell if this is actually being mediated or not (or in some other sort of dispute resolution). Would someone please do the favor of emailing me or posting on my User Talk page is this is opened up in one of these forums? Thank you kindly. Msalt (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. If mediation is opened, you will be informed as an active editor. You can read about the process at WP:MEDIATION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith

≈ jossi ≈ has contacted me via wikipedia email, expressing the view that I am the owner or otherwise associated with one of the sites in question in this section. I have answered ≈ jossi ≈ publicly because I consider his claims to be fundamentally lacking in Good Faith WP:GF. For the record there is a single article authored by me about the writings of one academic who has written about Rawat on the particular website that is of concern to ≈ jossi ≈. I have posted my reply at User_talk:Jossi and copied at User:Nik_Wright2 --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, could you clarify your involvement in or relation (if any) to the websites listed in the "external links" section of the Prem Rawat article and/or under discussion here and/or subject to reverting in the article? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just looked at the last of the three external links and found it to contain anonymous allegations of illegality and immorality against the subject of this article and against other people. Links should be of the same encyclopedic standard as the Wikipedia mainspace articles. This link is not acceptable. Please discuss its removal. Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop creating new talk page sections about topics that *are* currently being discussed on this talk page. I already complained about this habit of someone starting a new talk page section when the person doesn't like the outcome of a previous, still active, one (#Talk page discipline). This is yet another example of the same.
See above...
...for the ongoing discussions on the "external links" topic. Please make sure you read what is on this page before writing the same for the nth time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Having one negative and only two positive links is a typical case of false balance. If at all a critical site has to be included, it should be straight cognizable that it represents a contentious small minority view, even if it is somewhat virtually inflated. Otherwise a lot more positive links should be provided.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The balance doesn't strike me as unfair. On the other hand your "it represents a contentious small minority view" appears as some sort of OR to me. Where did you get that information? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your claim itself would be OR. We can certainly include a critical link about a public media figure. It is no BLP violation. Lawrence § t/e 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not against having critical links, as long as BLP is respected. I objected to false balance. Active detractors number presumably less than 100, while there are 100,000s of happy active students. The fact of controversy should be mentioned, but then it is not such a central issue. It is conditional, like the shadow of an object, which can easily be longer than the object itself, depending on how low the lighting beam is set. In my understanding WP should be ambitious to discriminate and not give the conditional undue weight, but primarily aspire to inform on the unconditional, and leave more ephemeral noises to the press. I also believe BTW, that if you exposed Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedia to acclamation processes like WP does, they might lose a lot of their dignity.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Critical links of public figures may be welcome, but not those that carry defaming statements. Why?, because it Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: 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. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. If you have a need to change the policy and established guidelines on the subject, do so at WT:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As explained again, there are no unsourced defaming statements. What defaming statements are you referring to? Please provide a specific example. Lawrence § t/e 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, you seem to have a misunderstanding about what sources are acceptable in a Wikipedia article about a living person. BLP Policy is explicit "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." The sites being discussed to don't provide reliable third-party sources, they rely on OR. Momento (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not repeat such allegations in talk page, as that would also be in violation of WP:BLP. Do you have email enabled? I can email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And your question does not address the lack of compliance with content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
E-mail is enabled. What evidence is there that this is a personal site? Also, did you see the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#By_website that talks about this site? Are those your concerns? My primary concern is that this article is imbalanced still, and too many people with known or demonstrated bias to the cult/sect have undue control of influence here. That will be trimmed back. Lawrence § t/e 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have emailed you. Editors have been working to improve the article, and progress is being made. And what is new?, all editors have biases, but that does not stop us from wanting a good article, and influence edits in that direction. No different than editing Homeopathy, or any other subject about which there are strong POVs at play. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I'm just of the opinion that strong POVs need to forcibly placed in check, even if those with the POVs don't like it. Neutrality isn't something to negotiate on with POV pushing. POV pushers or strong POVs need to take a shot in the ideological mouth when they push too hard, and pushed to the side by the community whenever they come up, or else they'll end up with undue authority. Neutrality always comes before personal stakes, POVs, or wishes of any one of us. If some people get upset about that like on the homeopathy mess, or some of the editors here... c'est la vie. We're here to suck at the neutrality tit, not the tit of junk science or Prem Rawat. That's why I try to never touch articles I may be conflicted in, such as Judaism. I'll reply to your email on the specific points. Lawrence § t/e 15:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a Jew, and I have no problems editing articles on Judaism. I lived in Israel for many years, saw combat there as a soldier, and I have no problems in editing articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yes, we all have POVs, and yes, we can still put NPOV, V, BLP and NOR, before our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) should clarify what he means by articles that an editor may be "conflicted with" - whether this refers to "POV" or rather a conflict of interest? Cirt (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion on the Admin Noticeboard was archived [[23]] two independent editors had the following to say about theprem-rawat-maharaji.info link.
I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So I'm removing it. BLP policy is clear - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material".Momento (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank yoou. I missed that discussion and the comments by uninvolved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Official"

Francis Schonken wrote: it's what the website says, no need for interpretation, see talk

Excuse me please, Francis, where exactly does it say this? I can't find it.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see above below #Talk page discipline
The answer to your question is above in #By website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, if I strain your nerve, but I have only limited time to busy myself with WP, and the discussion has recently made major leaps in the intervals, and it appears easier to communicate directly on a small circumscribed subject than being chased through miles of text - and then not even finding. Maybe my brain is getting a little old, and English is not my first language anyway, so I must ask your patience, not to trifle with me. Again, where does it say - on that website - that it is official? To my perception, the link-tag has been worded arbitrarily, hasn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the title tag:

  1. Open the page ( http://maharaji.net/index.html );
  2. Click "View → Page source" (or whatever the equivalent in the browser you're using) - you get to see the full HTML of the page. There, in the <HEAD>... section, you'll find

    <TITLE>Maharaji (Official site of Prem Rawat) </TITLE>

    The content of the title tag may be visible in your browser too, depending on which system & browser you're using, and settings. For me, for instance, it shows on the tabs of my Firefox.

Now, If you edit the Prem Rawat article, especially when reverting or deleting, or overwriting what others wrote I have little mercy, you'll have to read the relevant talk page sections. If you have no time, probably the best option would be to look for a less tense article, or wait till this article comes in calmer water. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, ja, thank you very much, I have it now. Still, I prefer not to be pushed out of the process, just for not being an unemployed know-it-all. After all, I'll try to increase modesty; and mercy is certainly something we all need.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very much "in the process" by taking note of the talk page, and contributing every once and a while as you do.
I didn't say "no mercy"... yes, at least a "little mercy" is what all of us deserve, toiling over this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text (Randi)

I removed the following text (refs nowiki'd):

Skeptic James Randi described Rawat as the leader of the cult Divine Light Mission, and as an overweight teenage guru, who was addressed as “Lord of the Universe” by his devotees and who was driven in a Rolls-Royce or driving high-powered motorcycles.<ref>James Randi and Arthur C. Clarke 'An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural' New York: St Martin’s Griffin. ISBN 0-312-15119-5</ref>

James Randi is a debunker, not a journalist, sociologist, religious scholar or other such source. His opinions and claims about religious figures, unless related to debunking claims of observable phenomena, simply have no place in such articles. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting claim you've got there. For your statement to be true spiritualism has to not be a religion. Randi has enough profile that his comments are generaly worthy of note.Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If "enough profile" were sufficient, we'd have Oprah quotes populating thousands of topics. What good reasons are there to use Randi as a source? Vassyana (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
TV shows are difficult to cite. However it fills the time gap between J. Gordon Melton and David V Barret raher nicely.Geni 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It's like quoting from a book called "Indians who live in the west who I don't like".Momento (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidences?Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that a book published by St. Martin's press and co-authored by Arthur C. Clarke isn't worth citing? Because you label Randi as a "debunker"? Even though he's not expressing an opinion, he's stating what he believes to be facts? If a professional "debunker" can't be trusted to get basic facts right, then presumably nothing that he says should be considered reliable. Is there a particular sentence of a policy or guideline that you're relying on for the basis of this removal?
In the absence of counter-evidence that this statement was clearly erroneous (e.g., a successful lawsuit, an apology, a printed correction), it's certainly (in my opinion) appropriate to leave the quote in - it is absolutely factually correct that Randi said this, and that he is a notable figure, and that this wasn't a casual off-hand remark, it was part of a book that a reputable publisher printed. (Exception to the prior sentence: perhaps Clarke should be added in?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The quote should be reinserted, AND the name of the book, because of the reasons above and that Randi's view is echoed by many mainstream media publications. --John Brauns (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You say "it should" but then choose to editwar rather than discuss. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, why do you describe my insertion of a reference from a notable respected figure as 'editwar'? The majority of the views in this discussion are for inclusion. It is for the minority to make a case for exclusion, before the entry is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no concept of "majority" or "minority" in Wikipedia. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Also, it may interest you to read WP:BRD, and adopt that behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • revert [24] Revision as of 12:54, February 10, 2008
  • revert [25] Revision as of 16:50, February 10, 2008
  • Your initial addition [26] Revision as of 11:48, February 9, 2008
That is what we call in Wikipedia, edit warring ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The text was added, edited a few times, deleted, discussed here, and re-added. That's hardly an editwar. --John Brauns (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RR if you have any doubts about what I am saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Methinks WP:EW would be more appropriate. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the Randi reference in general terms (Rawat has been described as a fraud -- cite Randi -- and as a cult leader -- in the Criticism section, moving Lawrence's insertion from the "Coming of Age" section. I generally prefer criticism to be "in-line" in the general article rather than in a separate criticism section, but the insertion was such a general blanket statement that it just read poorly. It look like it was air-dropped in. Also the section already has more detail on the same subject -- allegations of brainwashing and coercion. If we're going to have a general criticism section, then that is the place for such statements. I would like to see some further changes to that Criticism section -- notably, the Melton quote minimizing Mishler's significance seems quite POV and WP:SYN -- but I realize a LOT of work has been done on it already. I'd like to read through the subpage collecting different versions of the section, and look for other sources as well, before I jump in. Msalt (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I appreciate your intent, but have you noticed that we are now actually putting words into Randi's mouth? Because the Prem Rawat section of the book does not explicitly describe PR as a fraud. And as this page from the same book proves, inclusion in the book does not automatically mean that the relevant person is thereby marked as a fraud. Perhaps we should stick more closely to what Randi actually says, e.g. that he considers the teachings to be "based on sensory illusions" or that in his opinion only "the very naive" could be convinced of their merits. And long-term the whole Randi thing should be thrown out and replaced with something more solid. Cheers, -- Jayen466 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does Melton refers to PR as a "cult leader"? Have you read the source? As for your "jumping in", can you explain your sudden appearance in this article after a year of inactivity? There are several editors that have suddenly activate dormant accounts, and I find that puzzling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm sorry that you have been subjected to lots of unfounded personal attacks in all the controversies surrounding this page. That must suck, especially after all the work you've done for Wikipedia. However, demanding that I explain my editing here, as you just did, could easily be seen as a violation of WP:AGF, or an indication that you have a sense of ownership of this page.
I am fighting the instinct to justify my presence, and for now I think I will let my edit history and extensive and easily traceable involvement in online public forums over the last 15 years speak for itself. Honestly, it seems like this page is so watched over by both devotees and antagonistic ex-devotees of the subject that my LACK of a conflict of interest somehow makes me suspect!! I happen to think that this page needs MORE, not less, fresh blood to get past the bitter editing conflicts.
I don't have your long history on Wikipedia. Did I miss a policy that editors not involved in edit wars must justify their presence on a page? Msalt (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit history only shows one year lapse between your last edit, and editing this page. As for extensive and easily traceable involvement in online public forums over the last 15 years, please clarify. Yes, WP:AFG is worth mentioning. You may want to re-read it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Online history: A good starting point is that I was the co-host (with Howard Rheingold) of the Virtual Communities conference on the WELL in the early 1990s, and a stalwart there. I'm confident some people here remember me from those days. Since 1995 I have edited a political scandal web page called <a href="http:\\www.realchange.org">The Skeleton Closet</a>, which in some ways is wiki-like (non-partisan, sort of encyclopedic, I list all sources in footnotes) though very much my POV and single editor. I was heavily involved in alt.standup.comedy in the late 90s and early aughts, and lately have spent time at Metafilter as well. On all of these, I am known as msalt wherever possible, though on the WELL I was later Training as well. I think I put this all on my User page but I don't really remember, I'll check.
To be explicit regarding the hot issue of COI, lest anyone think I'm being coy, I will state outright: I have no knowledge of or experience with Prem Rawat, have not met or emailed anyone who is follower or ex-follower of his, have no strong feelings about him one way or the other. I'm an agnostic ex-Catholic with secular Taoist leanings. Have I passed the security check yet?
I am truly offended that you think you have the right to grill me here, and ask that you really consider the wisdom of this tack, and consider an apology. I answer your challenges under protest, only to remove any doubt anyone might have of my motives. I will never understand how you think your challenges here conform to WP:AGF. Msalt (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I extend an apology, and hope it is accepted. I am just concerned with a series of dormant accounts (I have counted five) that suddenly got activated, by users with a knowledge of WP policies, and given the circumstances, I have a difficult time to WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted and appreciated, of course. Like I said, I know you've taken a lot of hostile fire lately (or is the proper term "friendly" fire?). I realize my combination of confidence and limited experience is unusual, but hopefully my background explains that better. As for policies, well, I've learned it all in the last 10 days! I appreciate the links provided, and the clarity with which the policies are spelled out. I'm good at being analytical. As for why I'm here, now -- I love the Wiki project, have very limited time, and this is the second article where I've gotten fascinated by the Sisyphean task of trying to contribute in the midst of bitter edit wars (no offense, but...). The other was the Mark Foley page, which I came to through my political scandal website. And now, hopefully, everyone is happy to hear LESS about me again. Msalt (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, please stop. Not constructive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that several dormant accounts are suddenly active. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I could point you to another one. Did you hear me complain when I found out about that one a few days ago, although certainly belonging to one of the "camps"? Do you have any idea how *bored* we desinterested (read: uninterested) parties are with this former guru – although I only want to speak for myself? So now you have taken it upon yourself to start bickering in a way that could easily chase away those not thoroughly hardened in wiki dealings. Please. Everyone is welcome, and especially the desinterested ones should be made welcome, *especially* if they want to explain their edits on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, if this is not obvious to you, my concern is WP:GAME, and WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And you got your answer from the one you wanted to test. That's where you should have stopped, at least on this talk page. Indeed, dormant accounts have resurrected: as you already said you knew about more than one. The ones sharing your viewpoint weren't put to the same scrutiny by you. I consider that accidental. That's why I asked you to stop about it here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler about this, but I still feel queasy about the Randi passage "James Randi described Rawat as a fraud.", sourced to Randi's Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.

  1. Randi does not describe Rawat as a fraud in the Prem Rawat section of his book; our wording is OR. If we claim to be quoting Randi, we should stick more closely to what he actually says. At present, the only (tenuous) justification for our assertion that Randi calls Rawat a "fraud" is the fact that the word "fraud" occurs in the book's title ("... Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural"). But how do we know that "fraud" applies, and not "occult claim" for example? After all, Randi tries to demolish various "occult claims" in his section on Rawat. And his book also has an entry for Pythagoras, for whom neither "claim", nor "fraud", nor "hoax" seems applicable. I do admit the passage "He promised followers that they would “receive the knowledge” after a period of study and work, during which they donated all their income to him" is suggestive of an allegation of fraud, but perhaps then we should rather quote this verbatim, together with Randi's assertion that certain spiritual experiences promised by Rawat were in Randi's view nothing but sensory illusions. Then we can leave it to the reader to draw further inferences as to whether Randi considers Rawat a fraud, honestly deluded, lacking in scientific knowledge, or whatever.
  2. Randi mentions on his website that the online version of his book is different from the printed book. Having looked up the book on amazon.com, I can't find a reference to Maharaj Ji in the index, nor a reference to Guru Maharaji or Prem Rawat. This may be because of an error in the compilation of the book's index, or it may be because the section is only included in the online version of the book. (Unfortunately, amazon.com only offers "Look Inside" and not "Search Inside".) Does anyone here have a copy of the physical book? If the section is only present on Randi's website, our ref needs adjusting. If it's just an error in the compilation of the index, then this point is of course moot.
  3. The tone of Randi's article is jocular and dismissive, and the article itself very brief; as others have pointed out before, it is not really an ideal encyclopedic source. -- Jayen466 01:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Randi is not a great source, for reasons I've stated before (esp your first and third points.) He is there in the criticism section as a representation of the bulk of criticism of Rawat, which is also I think not accurate. Could you suggest a better summary with (obviously) good sources though? It's like Cagan, not a great source but probably acceptable as a stop-gap. I think part of the edit-warring here comes from people using appropriate WP policies to simply delete points they don't really want made, rather than find a better source or re-word the points. This obviously creates bitterness and is I think WP:GAME. It's important to distinguish shaky sources from points that shouldn't be in the article, whether sourced or not, and I've tried to do this.

The older sections of Criticism cited by CIRT and on the Criticism subpages probably contain, for example, several references that could be used for a statement like "Rawat and his following have been criticized as a cult." It seems like the general shape of a criticism section should include 1) cult allegations 2) criticism of his luxurious lifestyle and/or devotee donations and 3) criticisms by ex-devotees. At least, my passing look at many of the sources seems to show a consensus along those lines. It's on my to-do list but I won't have time for a couple of days probably. Msalt (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Premie

Currently, the premie disambiguation page explains more about the use of the designation "premie" than the Prem Rawat article (apart from figuring extensively in quoted footnote text), although that disambiguation page refers to the Prem Rawat article for this meaning of the term. There's also something that looks like a contradiction (but maybe isn't): the disambig page refers to premies as followers of Prem Rawat; the Prem Rawat article mentions the term only in connection with Prem Rawat's father ("...his father's followers (known as premies)", in the Childhood section).

Could we merge the "use of the term" information, currently on the disambig page, to the Prem Rawat article? Any objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem except article size. As part of becoming stable we will probably want to go for Good Article again, and almost certainly the reviewers will call for another debloating. We are not writing a book. The pendelum swings. Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"premies", comes from the sanskrit word "prem" that means "love". I will look for a reference. In India the term is widely used, but in the West is used rarely nowadays. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”).[1]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"the Mission" being DLM in this context, according to the footnote, and not, for instance, The Mission. Anyways, thanks for the clarification, naively I thought "premies" derived from Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem is a very popular name in India. And yes, the mission here is the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Prem Rawat was known in India as a child as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar, and as Maharaji today. It is only recently (last 10 years or so) that people started referring to him by his passport name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, what page in Melton? there is already a reference to the DLM entry in Melton in the Prem Rawat article, saying it is p141-2 (not p14). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, p.141. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anyway, here is what is on the "Premie" disambig page:

* Premie, a student of Prem Rawat. The word was widely used amongst followers of Prem Rawat in western countries until the mid 1980s, and is still used informally. It is still in use in India and other Eastern countries.

Can someone help clean that out over there? The rest, the part about the use of the term should be referenced and in the Prem Rawat article imho. Can someone provide an adequate reference? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have duplicated the material. The second sentence starting with In the late 1960s, British followers in India invited him to visit the West refers to the same people as Melton's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what you say now is that "Americans in India" == "British followers in India". The difference seems a continent to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Both British and Americans visited India in the late 60's and found there the young Maharaji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, logical. But Melton didn't imply "followers from English-speaking countries around the world", or did he?
"British" visitors would be more prevalent at the time in India I suppose (in general), with India having been a British colony and all: is there any reason why Melton stresses "Americans", or is that only accidental because he (supposedly) was one himself? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cagan's book describe these early seekers, with names and nationalities: Americans, and British. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean I can adapt the sentence now quoted to Melton? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled on this yesterday:

The Divine Light Mission, which was Maharaji's organization was largely comprised of Jewish kids seeking truth and the reality of God [27] [28]

Was that indeed a common characteristic of followers of Rawat (Jewish background)? Or is that just this author's POV? Is there anything more to know about this from more scholarly sources (the book I quoted from is a primary source autobiography as far as I can tell), or is there nothing more to say about the (early) followers of Rawat than "American and British"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no way I can keep abreast of all these arguments and hold down my job, so I will just dip in when I feel I have something to contribute. Francis, I have seen some encouraging signs of neutrality from you. I believe you might be realising there could be more to Prem Rawat than what might commonly be assumed. What I would also like to see would be your developing your own "nose" for some of these sources. This one, for example. When people receive Knowledge there is no screening for race, religion or nationality. Mostly, their names are/were not even taken. No one can say which group the majority stemmed from. From my experience there were no more jewish looking or sounding premies than any other group, and a lot are represented. It looks to me that this author feels he/she has found a clever way to insult both premies and jews at the same time. Really not worth mentioning here. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the 'largely Jewish' reference was probably a false impression. The early western followers came from a wide cross-section of religious upbringings. No doubt though that they were seeking Truth and the reality of God. That was for sure.PatW (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Article history

See the Article history box. There is some interesting info that has since mysteriously gone missing from this article, see versions 25 October 2006, 12 November 2006, (as of the 2 prior peer reviews), and 10 March 2007, (as of the failed GA Review, done by Vassyana (talk · contribs).) Cirt (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, please spare us from puzzles and riddles, what specific "missing" information do you want us to be looking at in these older versions of the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I just gave it a quick glance over as I was setting up the "article history" box uptop on the talk page, and noticed a very different presentation of the criticism sect, and the info in there. I'll have to go over those older versions in more detail later to see what was censored out of them over the years. Also, there is some missing info here regarding litigation history, litigious nature of related organizations/companies, etc. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, most litigation was only sourced to primary sources with the exception of the John McGregor case, so that is why it was omitted. Andries (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's organisations

I propose to add a new section to the article giving some basic information on the organisations associated with Prem Rawat. For someone new to the subject, it now gives the impression one is supposed to know a lot of things before starting to read the article.

For every one of them, I'd like to see a short overview: how many people involved; when started; does it still exist or has it been renamed; what is the nature of Prem Rawat's involvement; are these official organisations, or informal designations?

These descriptions might work as summaries in a Wikipedia:Summary style aproach, which is good quality article writing.

Ashrams 
"Ashram" is clearly a concept existing outside the context of Prem Rawat too (Prem Rawat isn't even mentioned at the Ashram article). How many of them associated with Prem Rawat were there, roughly, with how many members, with what evolution over time? Are there any statistics, external sources providing information on them etc?
I don't think anyone ever counted them, and they were opening and closing constantly. No source that I know of has attempted to give us this information. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Divine Light Mission 
also basic statistics, and nature of Prem Rawat's involvement, linked to external sources would be welcomed. Was it completely merged to Elan Vital, or did it still continue as a separate organisation (until today, or until what time), after the merge to Elan Vital?
I believe the current text: In 1983 the downsized Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital, and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives describes the situation accurately. The DLM was registered by early devotees to assist in spreading the Knowledge. The focus was clearly on Prem Rawat, but he had no legal ability to control anything until he became an emancipated minor. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Elan Vital 
apart from the kind of information suggested before, some explanation on where the name of this organisation came from would be welcomed.
AFAIK, Elan Vital means "spirit of life" or "life force." I have always presumed the name comes from the experience of practising the techniques, but I have seen no source report on it. Elan Vital has no members. Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Divine United Organization 
currently unmentioned in Prem Rawat article, see below.
I think DUO was an attempt to Anglicise the Indian named organisation. The name never achieved much currency. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Raj Vidya Kender 
currently only mentioned in an external link at the bottom of the page: if nothing of this organisation is explained in the article, I'm not sure why we should have a link to its website.
Perhaps we shouldn't. It isn't that important. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Prem Rawat Foundation 
Same questions, also: were other organisations merged into this one?
See above. Again, TPRF has no members, it exists partly (or mostly) to materially assist Prem Rawat in spreading his message, but also to distribute aid to distressed global areas, largely by assisting existing aid organisations. I understand it was created anew from no pre-existing base.
You will understand my answers above are just "FYI." They are true to the best of my knowledge, but are not sourced. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give much more detail in the Prem Rawat article, and I know more detail can be obtained from the individual Wikipedia articles (that's how "summary style" works). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem in principle, but see the following on "debloating." I can see it all having to come out again. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of this.... Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here and there is wording about them in this article (teachings section). Same as the Elan Vital , and The Prem Rawat Foundation. These organizations are described and in the article already, do we need more?. Raj Vidya Kender link could be removed, if needed. I have not found published sources about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the Divine Light Mission article, the concept ashram isn't really explained (only that they were "established", "closed", "disputed", etc), nor is the word "ashram" in that article even a single time linked to the Wikipedia article ashram. I suppose the DLM article needs some serious debloating too, and provide actual factual information instead, e.g. what the difference is between a western ashram, and an ashram in India? Other factual information (as opposed to bloat) missing from that article are basic questions like, how many Prem-Rawat related ashrams were there? How many of them are there still in India? How many of them are there still of the variety connected to his brother and mother (which is DLM too, at least in India)? How many people were involved in ashrams over time? Basic statistics please.
Also, it would be better that Wikipedia is less an exercise in solving puzzles. You say "Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here" - but how on earth are readers supposed to know in advance that from the Prem Rawat article they don't have to click the ashram link when they want to know more about what is unsatisfactorily explained in the paragraphs mentioning them, but instead have to navigate via the Divine Light Mission link (...to find there an article with also incomplete context, but no longer a link to the ashram article)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Maybe a brief lead at the start of a summary section, such as "A number of organizations have been associated with Prem Rawat over the years:", a quick description of each, with a Wikilink if applicable. I think this would be a great help for the reader just learning about Rawat to understand his history and works. Msalt (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. There is evident confusion and cross-referencing between Rawat and these organizations; Jossi, you as much as anyone have criticized editors for referring to him when a source describes one of these organizations. They all seem to be organized around him and his teachings, and he is the common threadbetween them. So a listing with a quick description or distinction between them would seem to be the essence of encyclopedicality. (is that a word?) Msalt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a more or less correct overview:

His first organizations were called Divine Light Mission (DLM) and Divine United Organization (DUO). Later in the eighties he started referring to himself as Maharaji and the various Divine Light Mission organizations were gradually replaced by entities with the name Elan Vital. Today he typically uses his given name, Prem Rawat, and his newest organization is called The Prem Rawat Foundation. In 1974 a legal battle saw him lose control of the Divine Light Mission in India to his mother and elder brother. With the loss of the Indian DLM, the promotional organization for Prem Rawat in India became Divine United Organization, which has now been renamed Raj Vidya Kender. [29]

? (seems we need to mention the Divine United Organization too, currently unmentioned in the Prem Rawat article). And on the ashrams:

[In the early 70s] 'mahatmas', were sent to support the [...] western Divine Light Mission and a system of ashrams - houses where Rawat's followers lived communally in a Hindu style of monasticism - was instigated. [...] in 1977 [...], the ashram system was reinvigorated after a period of apparent decline, a more restrictive set of rules were imposed and all of Rawat's followers were subject to stronger encouragement to enter the ashram system. [...] In 1982 without prior warning, Prem Rawat announced that the Divine Light Mission ashrams would close, [...] the closure programme [...] was complete by the end of 1983. [...] The DUO ashrams in India were treated separately and remain to this day as largely monastic in character. [30]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. It is anonymous and unreliable, and should pot be used. Sources are provided in the respective articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether I used a reliable source is not the issue here. I asked whether it is a convenient summary, e.g. "ashrams - houses where Rawat's followers lived communally in a Hindu style of monasticism". If that's OK, then sure we'll be able to find sources for it. If it's uncontested in WP:V meaning then I see even less of a problem. Let's not seek problems where there are none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I may try and furnish some facts and figures about the Ashrams of Prem Rawat if I get time and I've tried before but crumpled under the weight of premie objection...so a forlorn job it would be. One thing for sure: I personally heard Rawat circa 1978 saying he considered Ashrams as "the backbone of his work". I have a cassette tape of him addressing ashram premies (I was there) in a side meeting to the main hall (Palazzo Del Sporti) in Rome saying that he wanted Ashrams in every major city of the world. Also I recall him saying that if you were single and your aspirations were to be his devotee then you should be planning to dedicate your life to him in his ashram. In same Rome meeting he said that we the assembled were the most important (premies) to him and gestured towards the main hall (where the mass of non-ashram premies awaited him in their thousands) indicating that we were comparatively way more important than them. At most large festivals around that time he held separate Ashram Meetings for ashram premies. There must have been thousands of people in ashrams since there were indeed ashrams in most major cities, and typically these would have, let's say 7-10 people or thereabouts. As I keep pointing out (if we'd been allowed by Jossi to use Divine Light Mission monthly mags from the time) there are tons and tons of verbatim 'Satsangs' from Rawat and others that quite clearly paint the correct picture about Ashrams. In this Rome tape most of the dialogue is Rawat making fun of the fawning premies and asking for 'co-ordinators' to update him on the numbers. It seemed important to him to know how many ashram premies there were in each country and to tease the ones who had made the most effort with promises of a visit to the desperation of those communities who didn't measure up in the numbers game.

There was an extremely intensive religious ashram revival period in 1977-8 when Rawat instructed his 'initiators' (in the UK that was Peter Ponton and Nick Seymour-Jones) to go and basically recruit for his ashrams. That's when I joined - the second Ashram wave. Rawat was the same age as I and adult enough to be making responsible decisions. This was not his mother or mahatmas or any western premies influence. One major criticism of Prem Rawat remains that he was extraordinarily emphatic and heavy about the importance (to him) of 'real' devotees being in these Ashrams and yet essentially did not show appropriate care or concern for those people as time went by and was cynical about their sacrifices. Personally I was delighted that in 1981 (or thereabouts) he disbanded what had become in some peoples view a 'failed experiment'. I really disapprove of the way current premies here (many of whom only came in on the mild tail end of this story) seem to want to play down Rawat's involvement in Ashrams and make it sound like it was something 'thrust upon him' by others. His past organisations (conveniently now transformed into some other entity) always seem to be implicated to be responsible for things that he actually was in charge of. That is not right in my book.PatW (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you (again) that this page is not a discussion forum to discuss the subject of the article? We should be trying to find sources to support material in the article rather than use these pages to voice our opinions on he subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's a little confusing because some people seem to welcome a little first hand information - possibly because it may help indicate which supportive material is missing. As has been demonstrated there is a rather hostile habit of premies here to repeatedly excise controversial information without proper consultation and 'as if they own the article'. That to me partly explains why it is missing. Also, as you well know, since 1980's there is very little academic resource on Prem Rawat apart from the one's that derive indirectly from him. (Like Ron Geaves or Cagan). Can you show me a published interview or commentary anywhere that is not reverential or influenced his organisation? For example where is there some source on his attitude towards Ashrams in 1980? I'd love to see that! The DLM magazines that perfectly illustrate what went on (and that are in public libraries) according to you cannot be quoted. There's very little left that is unbiased to refer to. That's why I am unconvinced that it is entirely out of place to make suggestions here as to what facts we might want to be finding supportive material for. If I were one of the neutral uninformed editors here I would be incredibly confused.PatW (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect, Hunt's material is from 2003. As for "first hand" accounts, this is not the place for these as unpublished material is not acceptable in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not incorrect. You misunderstood me. I said there was 'very little' information not 'none'. Ironically even Hunt himself says: deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs. which explains why there is the conspicuous absence of material I commented on. By the way why do you think Hunt uses the word 'deliberately'. Would you agree with that? If so why? PatW (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the information contained in Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains by U. S. Department of the Army, published 2001 by The Minerva Group, Inc. ISBN 0898756073 [31]? It contains an estimate of involved and of very active adherents. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The source is already used in the article, and the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's), despite that last edition of the handbook's publishing date. The author of that section is Gordon J. Melton, who we are already using as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If I recall, Momento had collected some sources related to membership and number of adherents, that were used at a acertin point in the article. My view, is that these numbers would be better placed on the appropriate article about the organizations mentioned in these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is listed in the references section, but I don't see where it would be actively used as a reference in the Prem Rawat article. The DLM article uses it as a reference, but neither article cites this source (or any other source) on number of adherents as far as I can see. Also "the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's)" is nowhere mentioned in Wikipedia articles as far as I found out, even less referenced. So, please provide the information, as correctly as possible, with appropriate sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What I meant, Francis, is that the handbook refers to the DLM when it was headquartered in Denver in late 1970's (check the source, and look at the page header). I will try and find the adherent number's sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A more up-to-date version of the handbook, is available here (entry on Elan Vital here). And here is a source that was used in the past: In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in the U.S.[2] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a formulation to address the numbers: there are a number of sources with no consensus - so they all get quoted and the reader makes up their mind:

Levels of adherence to Prem Rawat have never been certain with the only consistent observations coming from the USA. Rudin & Rudin give a world wide following of 6 million prior to the family Schism of 1974, of which 50,000 were in the US; these figures had fallen to 1.2 million for Prem Rawat's personal worldwide following in 1980, of which just 15,000 were in the US.ref Rudin, James A. & Marcia R. Rudin. Prison or Paradise: The New Religious Cults; Fortress Press: Philadelphia (1980); pg. 63./refPetersen states that Prem Rawat claimed 7 million followers worldwide in 1973, with 60,000 in the US.ref Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing (1982); pg. 146./ref Melton & Moore suggest a US following of a mere 3,000 committed followers in 1982 out of some 50,000 who had been initiated into the Knowledge meditation. ref Melton, J. Gordon & Robert L. Moore. The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism. New York: The Pilgrim Press (1984 [3rd printing; 1st printing 1982]); pg. 142.br / >The Divine Light Mission grew quickly in the early seventies but suffered a severe setback in 1973 [Houston Astrodome event]. In the late seventies the Mission became a low-key organization and stopped its attempts at mass appeal. Recently, Maharaj Ji quietly moved to Miami. The Mission has reportedly initiated over 50,000 people, but only a few thousand remain the chain of ashrams that now dot the nation./ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

With that material I saw the chance of reforming the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section, see Prem Rawat#Reception. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jossi. Numbers in an organization should appear in that organizations article not this. That being said, the most recent figures I found are in In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in the U.S.[3].Momento (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

Francis, (a) you missed the most recent numbers, as per above. Second, we where discussing the possibility to have these numbers in the organization articles. I would argue that although being bold is good sometimes, I find very peculiar that we have a week's discussion on "Balyogeshwar", but only after a half-day discussions you choose to proceed without seeking consensus. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues with that edit:

  • Levels of adherence to Prem Rawat have never been certain with the only consistent observations coming from the USA. Unsourced original research, editorializing (never been certain according to whom?)
  • (probably largely outdated by the time these data were printed while in the book the organisation's headquarters are still indicated to be in Denver). More Original research - speculative editorializing

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the Edit in general; more academic sources, and a fair acknowledgement that those sources disagree. That said, I also agree with the two issues Jossi raises. On Melton, I think we should decide on this Talk page if it's reliable or not, and if so, present it straight; if not, remove it. The arguments about Denver and being outdated are clearly OR.
For the first line, how about this much simpler statement: "Estimates of the number of Prem Rawat's adherents vary." Msalt (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "Estimates of the number of Prem Rawat's adherents vary, and became less certain over time.<ref name="RR&P2000" />" for now.
Added the "Latter Day Saints" data, as suggested by Jossi (sorry, overlooked it, thought it was included in the string of references presented by Nik)
Re. the 2001 printed version: "the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's), despite that last edition of the handbook's publishing date" [32] Maybe, could someone find the original publication (or authoring, data collection,...) date of the 2001 book? Is it 1993 as the RR&P2000 webpage seems to suggest? Or was the 1993 version of these data already updated compared to what appeared in print in 2001? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I love cheesy prose as much as anyone but not in an encyclopedia. Could someone write the "adherents" sentence into modern English.Momento (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, Francis. Great to see some consensus building, and genuine article improvement. (I have no idea what Momento is talking about, though.) Msalt (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks better now, and please do not copy paste things from Nik's text as it contains too much editorializing interspersed with sourced materials. As for the sentence "By 1993 it was no longer possible to obtain estimates from Rawat's organisations", that is a bit ORish. This from a previous version if the article (2006): According to the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat has, over the years, engaged over nine million people in 250 cities and fifty countries. They estimate slightly more than half a million have been taught the techniques since he came to the West, about 125,000 of this number between January 2000 and April 2004.[4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You've got a point. TPRF is however a charity, while Elan Vital (as a successor of US DLM) still a religion or church in the US, as far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. More info is needed (read... references), but I suppose listing members of a charity, as "adherents" or "followers" of Prem Rawat is not doing justice to the situation. But again, I'd follow sources when presented, and I'd help in the quest where I can.
In 1993 Melton et.al. were clear any quest for input from the thentime Rawat organisation(s) was in vain (the quote is in the footnote).
The source quoted above for the data up to 2004 ( http://tprf.org/about_annual.htm ) is no longer available (I mean: doesn't provide these data).
TPRF status reports for the years 2005 and 2006 are available from that link, but as far as I can see (after skimming through the 2006 report), don't provide data on people initiated in techniques: this is a public report on finances and activities of a charity. As such, of course, can also provide primary source material for an encyclopedia, but not in terms of adherents or followers of an inspiring person. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the link does not work, I will see if I can find that source and we can then resume this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
From web.archive.com:
* Between February 9 and March 25 (2002), Prem Rawat addressed audiences of more than 45,000 persons and more than 21,000 people were shown the techniques of Self-Knowledge. http://web.archive.org/web/20021012114933/tprf.org/about.htm
* Between February 22 and March 10 (2003), Prem Rawat addressed audiences of more than 45,000 persons and more than 25,000 people were shown the techniques of Self-Knowledge. http://web.archive.org/web/20020409091824/www.tprf.org/about.htm
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to understand the heading 'Reception', even though English is my first language. It is not a word that is not immediately clear without context, and thus in my opinion should be changed. I understand that in this context it refers to the use as in 'his speech was well received', referring to people's opinion of him. However, 'reception' is normally used as a specific reference to the beginning or arrival or something in this context, and not as a generic term. For example "reception upon arrival in America" would be an appropriate specific example that would use the word in its usual context. I don't think the word 'reception' is synonymous with 'acceptance' in this case. 'Acceptance' could be used (except that it may be perceived as as implying positive criticism and thus not be neutral) as it is a generic term that could apply throughout a 30 year period. 'Reception' just doesn't feel right for a section that details such a long period in time. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Reception history"? I've been asking for an alternative terminology from native English speakers, but none was suggested thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reception sections are used in many Wikipedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest 'Reputation' as a neutral term that encompasses the main areas of the section, including amount of following, and criticism. Or, perhaps "reputation and following" is better, on the grounds that it is broader phrase, without using the rather tabloid term 'popularity'.82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reputation seems too judgmental, focused on evaluation, while this section really could better be described as "Popularity" for the most part. Reception makes me think of a cocktail party after an event, but it does cover both meanings (popularity and evaluation.) If it's the term generally used for these sections, let's keep it. Msalt (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Given recent press coverage of this article and the blatant conflicts of interests that have gone into its makeup, I believe the NPOV tag must remain on this article until unrelated editors, those who have not edited this article before and who are unrelated to Rawat, can throughly go over the article. Of course, their sockpuppetts may make that impossible. 216.114.82.56 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself an unrelated editor who had not edited this article before (as of what, Feb 15?), is unrelated to Rawat and is pretty thoroughly going over it. It's a lot of work. Instead of a drive-by tagging, why don't you roll up your sleeves and pitch in? Logging in is cool, too. Msalt (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's make one thing clear first: we don't write articles to please Cade Metz.
If Cade Metz thinks he can write a better article, he should just come over here and do it.
Cade Metz is not "The Truth" about Wikipedia, although he would probably like to think so.
Regarding your criteria of who can contribute to the Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat:
  1. Please provide a list of names of those who, in your view, are eligible to author the Wikipedia article on Rawat.
  2. I don't agree with your criterion "those who have not edited this article before" - this criterion also bears no relation to the idea of NPOV
  3. I don't agree with your criterion "those [...] who are unrelated to Rawat" – again, no relation with NPOV.
If you can't indicate where the NPOV problem with the article content lies, please explain why we should maintain a tag on the article placed there by an anonymous? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done Francis. I have removed the tag.Momento (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that more impartial editors like you, Francis are here. But would you be here if there had been no Cade Metz article? Would anyone be here other than existing people with COI I wonder? By the way I know that followers here persistently cast critics as a tiny minority who are relatively insignificant etc. The fact remains that it has been the critics loud woes and frustrations with this article that clearly came to the attention of Cade Metz and goodness knows who else, so it is really thanks to them that this NPOV matter has been drawn into attention. There was clearly a problem with excessive COI as most of you recently enjoined editors must surely agree. As far as I know it was Rawat critic, Mike Finch's public criticisms of Jossi Fresco that came to wider attention and are at the root of this new-found interest in cleaning up this article. I would point out a) that Finch's public hitting back is apparently the direct result of frustrations right here with Jossi (Finch pioneered this article I believe) and b) That if there was no substance to his accusations then no-one would be interested. PatW (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "would you be here if there had been no Cade Metz article?" – I was here a year before Cade Metz wrote his article. I dropped out after about a week. Not that I'm the self-accusatory type, but I'm still a bit mad at myself that I dropped out then, and thus laid Wikipedia open to this assault on its reputation. I've come to the resolution not to drop out this time, until the Prem Rawat article is on a good track.
I'll give a bit more context. Cade Metz wrote (on p. 4 of his article):

Working in tandem with others, [Jossi] soon created a separate article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat," moved all Rawat criticisms to this new article, and eventually had it deleted.
"All critical material was moved to an article of its own: 'Criticism of Prem Rawat," says a senior admin. "Jossi created that, with the intent that it wouldn't over-burden the main article. But then that article was merged back into the main article and basically deleted. All that critical material was pretty much all deleted, so the current article bears very little resemblance to the article of two years ago. It's shorter, and it's all positive."

Well, I played a role there (I had first barely recognised that under Cade Metz's heavy gloss/distortion),
  1. "But then that article was merged back into the main article", I performed the merge [33] [34] (it was not until Jossi drew my attention to it that I remembered)
  2. I dropped out about a week later,[35] but not until a basic integration of the criticism (in a "Reception" section, per Wikipedia:Criticism) had been performed.
  3. Note that in both edit summaries of the merge I had referred to Wikipedia:List of POV forks, a now deleted page. As far as I remember Jossi was a heavy supporter of that now deleted page, which aimed at doing away with virtually all "Criticism of..." pages. (But I'd need to see the edit history of that now deleted page to check whether my recollection is not erring here). Anyway whether Jossi supported or objected to the merge back into the Prem Rawat article, I can't recall any more. But he did create the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article [36]
  4. Anyway, a year later the criticism was as good as gone from the Prem Rawat article. When I had left, Jossi, Momento, and Andries were the ones I remembered best as still editing the article. From what I understand afterwards Andries had vigorously tried to keep the criticism in, but was overruled time and again by Jossi, Momento and Rumiton. (Roles of others I'm not that informed about).
So, no, it's better to never let that happen again. I don't like Wikipedia getting bad press over something we're all responsible to avoid.
Pat, I don't know whether that answers your question, but I tried. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply so fully. That was considerate and not something that I'm used to. You seem to agree that bad press can actually be a wake up call.PatW (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's largely preferable to have good articles, and good press as a result of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that I also recognise that regarding the tiny part of the Cade Metz article I knew more about, when looking under the layer of varnish and distortion, Cade Metz was not too far from what had really happened – of course helped by an anonymous "senior admin" (whatever that may mean, and whoever it is, I don't know). I say that, knowing that Jimbo Wales' stock reaction to a Cade Metz article is: "thoroughly unreliable", but then of course Jimbo only can speak about what he is more informed about himself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite.PatW (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no such "excessive COI", PatW. This is what the closer of the COI case said:After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing;[37]. Pat, I will not tolerate such type of observations in this talk page, particular after your insistence in using this page to cast aspersions on people here: You have been warned already, several times for personal attacks. If you want to initiate a debate about this issue, read the closer's statement and follow his advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack Jossi. I think I was merely considering the facts and that this Metz publicity has drawn some attention to this article which is rather welcome and healthy. Are you seriously denying that COI hasn't caused problems here and that Mike Finch hasn't criticised you in the way I said? And BTW I am not pointing fingers at you in particular for your COI. You declared your COI as have I. Also my criticisms about Momento are hardly 'aspersions'. Consider the fact that our new friends have even described his behaviour as 'disruptive' and they seem to be models of patience (at least compared to me).PatW (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than engage in discussions about the editors, it would be best to invest our energies in discussing ways to improve the article. Some progress is being made already, and as far as I can see, Momento has already made changes in his previous behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But I also think PatW has a fair point that his mention of COI was not really a personal attack the way you describe it. When I read it, I assumed he was talking about Momento and Rumiton,. As you note, the proof of COI is in the pudding (of an editor's actions, to butcher a metaphor) and I don't think it's unfair to describe Momento in particular as someone who appears to be consistently editing in the service of a private interest rather than the Wiki project. Are we not allowed to point out that elephant in this room? Is there a different and better way to handle it? Msalt (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The proof of the non-NPOV nature of this article, if any be required, is that User:Momento removed the NPOV tag. In light of the Informer article mentioned at the top of this secion (which fortunately can't be edited by premies and will no doubt remain around until Mr Rawat's legal team has finished with it), Momento is one person not qualified to do that without reinforcing the suspicion, as intimated in that article, that the article is indeed a whitewash. What is needed is a proper analysis, including all points of view, of the evidence supporting the contention that Prem Rawat is a fraud, how he benefits from the contributions of his 'listeners', what his views are on the joys of flying around in a private jet whenever he feels like and the environmental 'benefits' of so doing, whether the organisations that he fronts are using wikipedia and paying to get people to contribute to wikipedia as part of their public relations tactics and, most importantly, whether Rawat's 'message' still operates to hypnotise people (as it did in the 70s) into becoming zombies as per the body of knowledge we have about the social damage that cults can cause. Note, I am remaining anonymous because I am fearful of retaliation otherwise from agents of Mr Rawat's empire in light of warnings received from various sources.147.114.226.172 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, User:Momento removing the NPOV tag is no "proof of the non-NPOV nature of this article". We need something more substantial than that to demonstrate a NPOV problem. Tag-warring is not a proof of anything w.r.t. the POV/NPOV state of the article. Note also that the article has undergone changes and improvements since Cade Metz wrote his article in "The Register". So his language does not longer apply to the current content of the article. "NPOV" is a content assessment, not a behaviour assessment of editors. For behaviour problems there are other things that can be done, for instance Wikipedia:Semi-protection (which was applied for some time shortly after Cade Metz' article was published).
Momento is also perfectly "qualified" to do what he did. In fact any editor is "qualified" to do such things. Whether it was wise to do so is another question. Edit-warring with an anonymous editor over cleanup templates is indeed quite unwise. Momento should at least have given an anonymous editor the time to explain him/herself. I tried to give that opportunity, but still, if you can't indicate where the content of the article lacks NPOV, and in what way, and nobody else provides a good argument on the article's bias, the tag should go.
Regarding the content remarks you give about the article, a nice start would be that you indicate in which reliable sources we can find the contentions you think that should need to be in the article. A lot of the discussion here is about the reliability of such sources. Like you, I think it would be better not to gloss over such information, and even less leave it out completely. But we must have sources of which everyone can say, we don't object to these sources being used for the content of the Prem Rawat article. The high-strung presentation of such data, as you proposed above, is in any case not a direction we would likely go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever merits your points have are lost in, and undercut by the obvious bias of your comments. Note the reasons people have given for not using existing anti-Rawat websites; no listed authors, intemperate tone, lack of objective evidence, etc. (There's more but I haven't had time to read those thrashes.) If you really want to advance the charges you make here, why don't you construct a fair-minded, carefully and reliably sourced presentation of them, either here on Wikipedia (please start in Talk) or on an outside webpage that can constitute a reliable source? Then we could move this argument forward. As it stands, if everything you say is true, then you are doing your opponents a great service by undercutting your own arguments. Msalt (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing Anons tag.Momento (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am once again removing Anons tag as per [[38]].Momento (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't removed the tag. Let some other editor follow policy.Momento (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the restraint, Momento. I don't really understand the significance of these tags, so I am reluctant to remove it myself. It's pretty clear that the Anon poster doesn't have much of a case for the tag. Does anyone here think it's a good idea? How do we judge when an article deserves a tag like this? Msalt (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What disappoints me is that it is clear from [[39]] and [[40]] that the anon editor doesn't act in good faith and yet the tag remains. If I , on the other hand, remove it, or unsourced material, Francis claims I'm a vandal.Momento (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration. However, I think those of us who watch this page closely are in danger of losing perspective by having an accelerated clock. You know what I mean? If I check this page 5 times in a day ,and the tag is still there, it seems like it's taking forever for progress. But it's still just part of a day. I'm restraining myself on this one too because I just don't understand the significance of these tags. but I'm sure someone will come along soon enough and either remove it or explain what the standards are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you follow the links? According to [[41]] "ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". It seems several editors are happy that anything critical of Rawat can stay even if it violates policy. Feel free to remove that tag Msalt.Momento (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An "NPOV tag" isn't a critical comment. Judging by this talk page, there appears to be substantial disagreement over the neutrality of the article. Edit warring over POV tags is extremely bad form. Rather then worrying about the tag let's focus on settling disputes over the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the NPOV was inserted by 147.114.226.174 [[42]], a known IP of ZoeCroydon, shouldn't we follow the directive and ensure that "all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". Seems clear to me. Does anyone disagree?Momento (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If I read the page correctly, that IP is used by many users. If that's the only reason to remove the NPOV tag then consider it added by me, on account of numerous active disputes being discussed on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not follow that link, Momento, and I apologize for missing it. However, unless I'm mistaken, the NPOV tag was inserted by a different IP: 216.114.82.30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192871221&oldid=192870842). We don't know for sure that 147.114.226.174 is only ZoeCroydon: the User Talk page says it belongs to National Westminster Bank PLC in New York, and the behavior (one comment) is nothing like the modus operandi described on the "Suspected SockPuppets" page you cited. Also there is no obvious connection from 147.114.226.174 to 216.114.82.30, an IP for Palm Beach Community College.
In any case, Will Beback has seconded the NPOV tag so it doesn't really matter. Let's fix the page. Msalt (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are mistaken, the NPOV tag was added by 147.114.226.174 [[43]] as is clear here [[44]]. Since no one disputes that 147.114.226.174 is listed on Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon and the instructions are that "all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". I'm removing that tag in accordance with those instructions. WillBeback can put his own NPOV tag on.Momento (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your evidence that the edit is "by him", as the page you cite requires? I gave you good reasons to think it is not, which you ignored before editing against consensus. Msalt (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This page [[45]] says "ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". And there on the page is a list of IP numbers including User:147.114.226.174. Since sock puppets often use unsigned IP addresses to perpetrate their vandalism, the best Wikipedia admin can do is list those anon IP addresses that have been used and state that ""all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". If an innocent editor is using a disruptive anon IP address, they are advised to create an account if they don't want to be blocked. Despite being blocked on several occasions and advised to set up account, User:147.114.226.174 [[46]] continues to post anonymously and engage in disruptive editing. If you have a problem with the stance taken by the people who investigated ZoeCroydon, you should take it up with them.Momento (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You aren't answering the key question; what is your evidence that the edit you cite is "by him", as the policy you quote requires? It does not say "all edits by anyone at these IP addresses should immediately be reverted." In fact, it lists characteristics of ZoeCroydon edits, so that editors can identify them. Nothing in it is remotely like adding an NPOV tag to an article. Here is the full text:
"Having exhausted the community's patience as discussed here, ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight. Characteristics of his edits include the vandalism and trolling mentioned above, as well as repeatedly referring to false 'consensuses' that consist entirely of newly created socks and proxy IP addresses, claiming that higher authorities have been informed of abuse by other editors (including legal threats), posting personal information in edit summaries, and claiming that WP:AGF prohibits editors and admins from taking action against him." [47]
You have no evidence that ZoeCroydon made that edit, and you've made no response to the evidence presented that suggests it was not ZoeCroydon. More to the point, you have reverted this NPOV tag 3 times in 3 days, and only once was it added by an IP associated with ZoeCroydon. This is compelling evidence that your edit is based on other reasons you are not being forthright about, and your insistence on the ZoeCroydon rule constitutes WP:GAME. I have to say, you have quite a knack for finding policies that you claim allow, and in fact require you to make unilateral edits against consensus. Please reconsider your approach. It is disrupting this article. Msalt (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag (section break)

I re-added the NPOV tag with this edit summary: "Re-adding NPOV tag for the EL issue, see Talk:Prem Rawat#External links section.... There's prominent criticism on Prem Rawat (as explained in Criticism section), EL's should reflect that for NPOV." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time you read the BLP policy that says - Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material.Momento (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculative sentence?

I have removed the text 'According to religious historian Timothy Miller, "...he may [now] be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker."' This is without meaning - we could equally have replaced it with '... he may now be reaching fewer listeners than ever...'. I personally would bet on the latter! --John Brauns (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit says "removal of speculative sentence". But as far as I can see is sourced to an historian in a published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. You cannot do that, and spare us the sarcasm. This is disruptive and unhelpful. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt the sentence is well sourced - I am just saying it has no meaning or value. If Miller is saying he may be reaching more listeners he is equally implying that he may be reaching fewer listeners. Don't you agree? BTW, there was no sarcasm in my post. --John Brauns (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(and for your information, he is reaching millions of people, more than ever before, through television programming in all continents. ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jossi, this is disallowed as not RS. --John Brauns (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would encourage to self-revert your deletion of an obviously verifiable and reliable published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I would encourage you to apply a little judgement to the content of the sources and ask yourself if it adds any substance to the article. I will leave my edit and allow my peers here to judge whether it should be reverted. --John Brauns (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You still have a chance to restore the deletion, and when you are at it, please correct the page number in the cite. It is page 364 and not 471. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And also consider that you should by not be editing this article either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Many times well-sourced claims have been removed Momenot and to a lesser extent by Rumiton (both often supported by Jossi), because Momento had labelled them as an "exceptional claim", "good editorial judgment", "minority claim", only sourced to one scholar, or sourced to multiple but biased Christian scholars. In most cases I objected to this. Let us not whimsically change the interpretation guidelines and policies as soon as the article threatens to get contents that some editors do not like. If we allow this once again, as has been allowed in the past, then article will again reflect the POV of the majority of the editors here which may diverge substantially from a NPOV article. So what is the editing principle interpreation of policy that we adapt? Let us choose one and stick to it consistentlty. Andries (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth shouldn't I edit this article? I have no conflict of interest. My interest on my website and my interest here is to help publicise the truth about Prem Rawat. The only difference is that on my website I can use first hand testimonies which are not allowed here.--John Brauns (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Answer: However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites.[48]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read that and disagree with it. I have read WP:COI and I am satisfied I have no conflict of interest in editing this article. --John Brauns (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you have more understanding of Wikipedia, than a respected and long time contributor to this project? Please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering the fact that nobody but YOU seems to have a COI here. The rest of us all have opinions, but none of us is being paid for them. You are reportedly paid to engage in public relations activities by Mr. Rawat. As far as I can tell, nobody else is paid, either to engage in such activities or to engage in activities opposing Mr.Rawat. Momento and Rumiton obviously act as if they believe that Goom Rodgie is the Lord of The Universe and as if they believe that it is therefore vitally important to prevent anyone else from finding that out about their secret beliefs, as it might dissuade the general public from "taking Knowledge," particularly if they realized that the Guru is in the habit of referring to himself in the third person as if he were omnipotent and omniscient. Wowest (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inviting Jossi again to answer the question I asked him above in #Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I invite you to to take people like Wowest, PatW and all others abusing this page to account for blatant personal attacks.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, I suggest you answer that question. You're free to ignore whatever you think must be ignored, but I really think it would help the discussion on the external links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You hit me first Jossi WAAAAAAAA I want mmy MUMMYPatW (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, not helpful. Please concentrate on article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about whether John Brauns is supposed to be editing here or not. I have to say that I am sympathetic to this edit. The statement does in fact seem speculative. The source appears to be verifiable, though I can't say I've looked it up, but the very words of the quote show that the author really isn't sure and is, in fact speculating. (Like all good reliable sources, the author acknowledges the limits of their knowledge.)

The bigger point is that this article in general closely narrates the career of Prem Rawat in a "horse race" manner. I am sure there are other bio articles that list an individualsetbacks or major advance for the subject here or there. But are there any other bio articles that read so much like the narration of a prize fight? "Ooh, he took quite a shot there. But wait! He's back on his feet, and the crowd is going wild!" There's a sense to me of a narrator who is rooting for the subject in the manner of a biopic. This particular line says 2 things: 1) he's more of a secular speaker than religious figure now (which has already been said, at some length, earlier in the article) and 2) that he is quite successful (which I'm not sure belongs.) Is there some general standard we can apply to distinguish statements that belong in a bio from those that are too positive (and hence imbalanced, or become cheerleading)? Msalt (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia:Consensus;
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view;
  3. Wikipedia:Coatrack (this is a good one I just stumbled upon, I'm discovering it together with you) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To me the statement looks like somewhat in this vein: "He went by airplane <ref>This means he will probably have arrived there in less than half the time than when doing the itinerary by car, according to talk show host XYZ.</ref>", i.e. a somewhat redundant bit of information. Support John Brauns on this one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Will all due respect I can muster, your arguments do not fly on the face of facts, and the seeming application of double standards is perplexing. An historian makes a statement about how changes on Rawat's presentation may be the reason he may be reaching more listeners than ever before, and you decide that it is speculation? And when another author, describes a speech of Rawat as banal, that is not speculation? What is going on here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain, Jossi. When someone says something 'may be' true they are speculating. If you look at what you wrote the words 'may be' are included twice, so this is what is called speculation. Don't thank me, I'm just glad to help.--John Brauns (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe what you need is to read the material surrounding that text in Miller's book to understand the context, and why it is a useful piece of information. I will copy the text and place here for discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here it is:

During the 1980's, Maharaj Ji began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission and eventually stepped down as a "Perfect Master". He continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher, and established a minimal organization called Elan Vital to receive contributions. He may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of public speaker, and his religious movement is essentially defunct. Miller, Timothy (1995). America's alternative religions. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press, p. 374. ISBN 0-7914-2397-2. 

Please explain why this material is not encyclopedic and not worthy of inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was appended after this sentence:

1999 saw the commencement of regular satellite broadcasts to North America and other countries.[ref] According to religious historian Timothy Miller, "...he may [now] be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker."<ref>Miller, America's Alternative Religions, pp.474</ref> [49] (my bolding)

OR, & SYN as it happens. the "[now]" (1995!) has no relation to the 1999 commencement of regular satellite broadcasts. So, indeed: speculation (although I didn't use the word "speculation" yet: I said "redundant bit of information"). Note that the reference doesn't include the publication date of Miller. Again the article is being made into a puzzle, while the date of publication of the quote only appears in a different section, after the footnotes.

Indeed, one can ask oneself why the most speculative sentence (the one containing the "may") was chosen from the Miller 1995 source? E.g.

  • "established a [...] organization [...] to receive contributions." is more affirmative, aka less speculative;
  • Why stop the quote before: "[...], and his religious movement is essentially defunct."? That's also more affirmative, less weasely and speculative.

I conclude some serious revamping has been going on:

  • Gave the impression Miller confirmed something Miller in 1995 didn't even allude to (1999 broadcasts);
  • The most speculative sentence of the Miller source was chosen, where less speculative sentences on other content abound.

John, good catch. Apparently I'm only starting to see how bad the 2007 rewrite of this article has been. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote, Jossi. Very helpful. I have to say that the full quote left me with a pretty different impression than its use in the article did. Francis spells out why pretty thoroughly. We should be able to rewrite it all more NPOV. I remain concerned that the "more successful than ever" part amounts to cheerleading, esp. as presented.
Not everything a reliable source says is itself reliable or appropriate for the article. It's very common for both good journalism and scholarly articles to end with a speculation like "This development may prove to be the beginning of a new era in blah blah", or the current example, but I don't think those statements belong in articles, no matter how impressive the source is. Msalt (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The full quote provides the necessary context to extract a good summary that can improve the "Westernization" section. Go for it! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh man... I provided the full cite, so use it to improve the article instead of congratulating a deletion of a source that is verifiable and usable. So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That was what I was intending. It looks like a good source on the "donations", for which we were looking for a good source. Anyone objects? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a good source in the section Westernization, as it presents the transition from previously assigned religious trappings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the source claimed Rawat 'stepped down as Perfect Master', when all he did was drop the use of the word 'perfect', I would not describe him as a 'good source'. Rawat certainly never 'stepped down' from anything. --John Brauns (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, your opinion against that of a reputable historian. You need to re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I was there, and Rawat never stepped down as 'Perfect Master'. I appreciate that my testimony cannot be used in this article, but I do have the right to comment on the reliability of other sources based on my personal knowledge. --John Brauns (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence discussed needs to be restored based on the source provided. These are the type of edits that makes an article NPOV, not endless discussions about a name or about a heading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossl, thanks for your comment. Now you start complaining so much and so strongly about a well-sourced sentence being removed, but you often supported and only very rarly objected to the removal by Momenton of dozens of well-sourced sentences. I hope that you start behaving less partisan and more constructively here. Andries (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Andries, most talk-page discussions revolve around the subject of assessing sources, how these are used, and how these fit within the overall context of an article. In discussions we try and gauge consensus on these matters, and if no common ground is found, we seek dispute resolution. So, yes, I may have argued for exclusion or rewording of certain texts and sources, and that is within what is expected of editors. No different here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's you use and used in your assements of sources strong double standards and hence they are not very helpful. This is one of the reasons why the article became unbalanced. Andries (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Look in the mirror, Andries. Yes, we all tend in some way or another to prefer some sources and dismiss others. And we there is no agreement, we pursue in good faith, the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, John's edit may be mistaken, but he was only following the reasoning often used by Momento who was often supported by you. Momento often used his personal assessments of statements to exclude it from Wikipedia by dismissing a reputable source as a "minority view", "exceptional claim" etc. Fact is that when Rawat spoke for the first since a long time in the Netherlands (the Hague) a few years ago there was not a single dutch newspaper that paid attention to it. It is well documented that the DLM and Maharaji in quite a lot of sources (among others Encarta) used to famous. So it will be clear that I agree with John that Miller's statement is misguided. Andries (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A Balanced Perspective

Leaving India

The words "Frequently acting like the teenager that he was, Rawat was seen by some as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" have little meaning and no references. The words seem to suggest that Rawat should not have acted like a teenager, or that there was some problem with this. Who saw him as being unfit? Who saw him as immature? If these people did make such judgments, then it was because they had a set of criteria that they opined was the correct set of criteria to apply to a religious leader. So who were these great holders of the stamp of religious leadership? This sort of material doesn't have any place in this article. [[User:|Armeisen]] (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A guru is often jugded by the standards set by a tradition. (Reender Kranenborg 1984) In this case Rawat broke with the tradition of respectable behavior by the guru that his father has followed. Andries (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course people have criteria for judging a religious leader. It is too easy to say I am a religious leader with a new message. You cannot judge me, because I know how a religious leader should behave. Not you. Armeisen, you have to understand that I used to believe in your reasoning myself, but now I can no longer take it seriously. Andries (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, Armeisen. In WP:AWT, the guideline about avoiding "weasel words" It says - "Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. Additional "weasel" words sometimes allow a statement to be implied when it is no truer than its inverse and sometimes imply that the statement is more controversial than it is. The problem with weasel-worded statements isn't that they are false; the problem is that they are chosen to imply something which they do not say. And the statement you refer to uses "seen by some" which is an exact equivalent of ""some argue that..". You should leave it for a few days and if no one wants to argue with the WP:AWT and delete it.Momento (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We are only following what the soource (Melton) has stated. Melton does not get more specific than that. I can only see this as wikilawyering (or misinterpretation of policies) to get rid of yet another well-sourced statement that some editors do not like. Andries (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write the guideline Andries. But my understanding is that guidelines are a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.Momento (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But common sense is that a reputable source uses weasel words then it is difficult for Wikipedia to avoid weasel words. This is not a valid reason for deletion of a statement sourced to the reputable source. If the used source (Melton) had been more specific then Arrmeisen's complaint would be actionable. Now it is not. Andries (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Either weasel words are to be avoided or they're not. Why have an Avoid Weasel Words guideline if you first argument is, they didn't mean it. Melton knows exactly what he's doing. In what ever investigations Melton made, he, personally, didn't come to that conclusion but "some" did. If a religious scholar had come to that conclusion it may be note worthy and worth including in an encyclopedia. But he didn't, "some" did but he didn't. Classic weasel word, classic weasel statement.Momento (talk)
Momento, I hope that you are not serious when you argue that a statement sourced to a reputable soure should be removed only because the reputable source uses weasel words. I think this is a complete misinterpretation of guidelines and I have difficulty taking your argument seriously. Andries (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether we use weasel words or we choose to use the weasel words of others is academic, they are still weasel words and still to be avoided.Momento (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here Melton appears to be using weaseling as a defense. It does not invalidate him as a source, but we need to be careful with specific instances. We can't just take out this weaselry as he was deliberately hiding behind it, using it as a shelter against criticism of his own opinion, whatever that may be. Probably the whole sentence needs to be deleted. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem to be a very weak comment. It's almost as if he feels obliged to say something critical. Maybe it's because he's a Christian minister and thinks he needs to criticize anyone who advocates a non Christian life.Momento (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Downton wrote that part of the conversion was the inability to voice criticism of Rawat. I think that this should be added to the reception section. Andries (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Melton's source can and should be used, but it needs to be summarized in a manner that is attributed to the source, and not asserted as a fact. Staying close to the source and attributing opinions to those that hold them is NPOV writing 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but, with regard to the discussion removed by Jossi for being off-topic, can I reasonably continue this debate on my Talk page? The accusations of VivK rightly should be answered so I am forwarding his/her accusations to the lady who he is accusing of sincerity and disruption. I invite him to defend his accusations on my Talk Page here if that is ok: PatW (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)