Talk:Prem Rawat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 20 May 2008 (+link to subpage for "Observations of scholars"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

Template:ActiveDiscussMC

Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Visualisation of footnotes

(please keep this section lower on the page than any footnotes that are to be visualised)

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Incorrect sources

1

  • On June 17, 1971, during his school holidays, Rawat flew to England alone. His arrival attracted substantial media interest. On June 20 he spoke at the Glastonbury Fayre, and on July 17, after brief trips to Paris and Heidelberg, flew to Los Angeles to begin an American tour.
    • Pryor, The Survival of the Coolest, p. 148.
    • Melton, J. Gordon. Entry "DIVINE LIGHT MISSION", subtitle "Controversy" in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp. 144–5

The Survival of the Coolest appears to concern another "Maharaj Ji" (perhaps the guru of Ram Dass), not Prem Rawat or his father. The "Ji" in that book wears a Sikh-style turban and is never described as a child or young person even though the action is set in the late 1960s. Neither that book nor Melton mention anything about Glastonbury, Paris, Heidelberg, or school holidays. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources may have been conflated and mixed up during the last shuffle. It would not be difficult to find the correct sources for these statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glastonbury source:

Maharaj Ji decided to take his message of peace outside India in 1970. He made his first appearance in the West in 1971 at a pop music festival in Glastonbury, England. Biography: Maharaj Ji, Britannica Book of the Year (1974), p.154.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The error predates any recent shuffles. The assertions were added without any source by Marvin Khan in October 2005.[1]. You soon added the Pryor citation for the assertion about drug use.[2] Then in May 2006 Momento deleted the text about drug use and so made it appear the Pryor citation supported the Heidelberg, etc., material (this deletion of material with retention of orphaned citations seems to happen a lot).[3] So this mistake was due to Marvin Khan, Jossi, Momento, and every editor who didn't check their work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that happens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an argument for a thorough review/rewrite of the article when the protection is lifted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2

Thanks, that sources at least some of it. Here's another similar problem:

  • In September 1971 the U.S. Divine Light Mission (DLM) was established in Denver, Colorado. In October, Rawat returned to India to celebrate his father's birthday, and in 1972 came back to the West, this time accompanied by his mother, eldest brother Satpal, and an entourage of mahatmas and other Indian supporters. A festival which DLM held in Montrose, Colorado was attended by 2,000 people.
    • Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. pp. 141–2. Entry: Divine Light Mission

This is far more detail than Melton gives. I presume there's another source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of that text disputed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we don't want material that's unverifiable in the article. Do we? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless is disputed/challenged (per WP:V). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3

  • "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: 'Who are you?' Maharaj Ji: "... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and, ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will be interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's an open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God."
    • 43 Reporter at Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972

Does this reporter have a name? Did he publish his report in any publication? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my notes I have material from an interview by a reporter that took place in Montrose, CO on July 25 1972 that matches that text, bur my notes does not say were it was published. I will need to research this. In any case, there are other sources with similar statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What material in the article is based on that source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the material in the article, you can use this source (my highlight): Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life. "God is an omniscient power that is hidden in the secret recesses of all living things. ..." The guru claims that he alone has the key to the knowledge of the source of God. He has promised his premies that with this key (his meditative techniques), they can get in touch with this source. His God is, then, an energy that is always present and cannot be removed by temporal circumstances. Maharaj Ji does not claim to give God to his devotees, but to put them in touch with the God that has been present in them all along. Stonner, C. & Parke J. All God's Children ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also: The guru does not claim to be God, but claims that through teaching his followers ("Premies") meditation and discipline, he can put them in touch with the God who has been with them all along. [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite his denial in a July, 1972 interview of any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people.

That goes way beyond what the unknown reporter writing in the unknown newspaper wrote. The quote from the interview doesn't even mention the mother. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text about "pre-existing millennial expectations" is from another source if I recall. Will have to dig it up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4

  • In accordance with Sant precepts Rawat has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, summed up by his statement, "Receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart".

Wikiquote is obviously unacceptable as a source (the entry there is unsourced). Besides that, the text is making conclusions which should be cited to a secondary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not appropriate for that text, but there are many sources available that can be used for that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DLM article additions

I've added good detail from the DLM article. I haven't removed any existing material.Momento (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I haven't removed any existing material":
  • You removed "Maharaj"[4] and "by his family and his father's followers"[5] from "When his father died in 1966, the eight-year-old Sant Ji Maharaj (as Prem Rawat was then known) was accepted by his family and his father's followers as the new Satguru."
  • You removed "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed."[6], nonetheless referenced to Downton.
So, that's the lies.
There are other remarks too, e.g. inserting repetition of the same material (why?) - e.g.
  • How many times does his mother return to India? Added again here, but was already in Prem Rawat#Coming of age (1st paragraph).
  • Is this an exercise in how many Downton references can be added consecutively? [7]
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice... Less that a few hours that the article is unprotected and this whole thing starts again? If one believes that an editor has made a "sloppy edit", rather than revert his work, why no fix/improve upon it? This type of behavior is the one that caused numerous problems before, and would be best avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being sloppy and with an untruthful edit summary (it looks like information was removed), if the edit in question does not add anything relevant to the topic it should probably be removed, and then discussed if necessary. In fact, since just about everything here seems so contentious why not discuss things first? That doesn't seem like such a burden if it helps remove this type of behaviour. Also, generally speaking (and of course there will be some overlap) DLM info does not need to be repeated here, that just bloats up the article unnecessarily. The information is already in the DLM article. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rawat was never known as "Sant Ji Maharaj" and is not referred to as such in the cited sources. Was "accepted" doesn't need "by his family and his father's followers". Cited nine sources of which two were Downton is hardly a crime. And I apologize for leaving out the mahatmas, an unintentional omission and having Mataji go to India twice was also a mistake.Momento (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain Prem Rawat signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Maybe someone can confirm.PatW (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Divine Times Volume 2, No 23 - December 11 1973 - The legal name of Guru Maharaj Ji is Sant Ji Maharaj, Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj Also I see I was correct that he signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Here is a letter which was published in the "Divine Times" Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974. Incidentally these magazines are available in the library not just at ex-premie.org where there is another letter from the 'Special Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times, page 2, under the heading 'A Festival for the Whole World' PatW (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may have been called that after he became Guru but not before. As per U. S. Department of the Army, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains (2001) pp.1-5 , The Minerva Group, ISBN 0-89875-607-3 "Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master and therefore he assumed the head of the Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father."Momento (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? Do you think the article should not explain that 'Sant Ji Maharaj' is a historic pseudonym of Prem Rawat? PatW (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the source cited says his was known as "Sant JI".Momento (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master...

Gosh, and I thought the hard-headed secularists here didn't believe in divine power. :D Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching section

I cleaned up the Teaching section and corrected several errors but it was immediately reverted by Francis [8].
Here are the errors he re-inserted -
  • 1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected
  • 2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.
  • 3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.
  • 4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.
And it reads very badly, so I have reverted back.Momento (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have relocated the material about his "teachings" from the "Leaving India" section to the "Teachings" section. Isolated where it was, it gave an incomplete picture without any supporting context. I have deleted the Time quote and the Collier quote as undue weight and they are not necessary in the "teachings" section. I am certain I have not lost any important material in the move.Momento (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, can you please add the citations when you add material? I mean here:[9]. I don't understand why you deleted the Time material.[10] How much weight is undue weight? What's your standard? Why are some sources attributed but for others it's undue weight? Moving on, this edit which deletes a source and adds material says "see talk", but I don't see the discussion.[11] Last but not least, this edit deletes sourced material with the note, "Removed misquoted Galanter". I tried to find "Galanter, Mark M.D. Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association. 1989, ISBN 0-89042-212-5 p. 20", but page 20 doesn't mention the subject. Which page are you reading that is misquoted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Galanter is here [12] or here [13], page 21.Momento (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are from Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. The citation is to Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association, an entirely different work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only took me a couple of mintues to track this down. Jossi provided the source, and Francis added it. Jossi posted:

  • Galanter: It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.[14]

Then Francis summarized it as:

  • According to Mark Galanter Rawat's early western discourses were something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.

That certainly isn't a misquote or bad summary. The mistake, to the extent that there was one, when Francis used Jossi's proffered source without checking the information himself. It appears that the actual citation is to Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion, and the text is on page 21.[15] So the material is proprely summarized/quoted and should not have been deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been otherwise preoccupied, I don't know whether this still needs clearing up or not, but Momento is right. Here is the complete quote from Galanter:

What were some of the trappings of religious practice in this emerging movement? Potential initiates were usually introduced to the Divine Light Mission at a session of religious discourse called a satsang, where experienced members presented the philosophy of the sect to the assembled group. The satsang could be delivered to active members or to those with only a casual interest. It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.

Galanter is referring to satsang, not to Rawat's discourses. Jayen466 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the Fahlbusch source for the rivalry? [16] I don't see any mention of it there. Can you give the citation and quote the source please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct source, Fahlbusch writes, "they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family". Chronologically it appears between the succession and his first trip to the west (which is incorrectly given as 1969).Momento (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you please address the other issues above? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Criticism section

Why was this material moved to the "Teachings" article?[17]

  • In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Dr. Paul Schnabel described described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. Comparing Rawat to Osho, he argued that personal qualities alone are not enough to explain charismatic authority – while he characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, he found Rawat no less of a charismatic leader than Osho. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[2] Schnabel observed, referring to research by Van der Lans, that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude, giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person.[3]

The text addresses Rawat as a leader, and doesn't refer to his teachings. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Because it comes from an article about "Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health" and compares the "charismatic leadership" of Rawat and Osho. It is not about Rawat as an individual, it is about Rawat as a "charismatic leader" or teacher.Momento (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't about Rawat as a leader then we'd need to remove all mention of him as a leader. This article is about Rawat, and his notability derives from his leadership of the DLM. The Teachings article is not about the personal charisma of Rawat. In a sequence of edits you deleted the entire "criticism" section. I've restored the material. Please do not delete sourced material that's required to make this article NPOV and balanced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Rawat's notability doesn't come as a result of his leadership of DLM, DLM notability exists solely as a result of Rawat. We have several articles related to Rawat - his father, his teachings, Elan Vital, DLM. An isolated paragraph on Rawat function as a leader of a religion belongs iin the "Teachings" article.Momento (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DLM had a million followers before Prem Rawat became its head. It was as the head of the DLM that Rawat achieved prominence. The Schnabel material is about Rawat the person, not about teachings. This doesn't explain why you deleted the entire "criticism" section twice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your revert for the following reasons.
1. Mishler's comments are already presented in the "Coming of Age" section - "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[59][60] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control".[61][62]
2. Kent's comments are already covered in the "Teachings" section - "Some journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content".
3. Schnabel's lengthy comment should be in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, where I put it.
4: Simply having a section called "Criticism" violates NPOV, particularly - "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;[18].Momento (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supplying reasons, but those are not sufficient or accurate.
1. The actual criticisms by Mishler are not contained in that earlier mention, they are just referred to.
2. Same problem - Kent's actual criticism is not included, it's summarized along with countless other scholars. Your edit summary claimed you were moving the material, but all you did was add the citation to exsting material elsewhere.
3. Per above, there's no consensus for that. As I've already said, that material is about Rawat's charisma and leadership not his teachings.
4. A problem with the heading is not an excuse for deleting the section. It was named "reception" which is very neutral. If you don't like the heading then change the heading rather than deleting sourced, neutral material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section (continued)

Where are we currently with regard to the idea of merging Criticism of Prem Rawat into this article? That article (i.e. the Criticism article) had a "mergeto" tag until a few days ago, for merging it into this article (i.e. the Prem Rawat article). Not so long ago someone also replaced the mergefrom tag in Prem Rawat#Reception by a {{main}} tag in the "Criticism" subsection (now deleted).

Well, one of the two, either the idea is still to merge, then it would be best to indicate that in both articles with an appropriate "merge" tag; either we're no longer sporting that idea, and then I suppose the only practical solution would be to follow summary style for a criticism section in this article, while keeping a separate criticism article.

The situation as created by Momento (by removing an appropriate link to the Criticism article, whether in a "merge" type of tag or in a "main" type of tag) is of course untenable. Suggestions? I'd go for the "main" tag again under the current circumstances, but that sort of implies to have a "Criticism" section title in the Prem Rawat article. Or is there currently still a broad support for the merge option? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material from that article has already been merged in to other articles where appropriate. The bulk of the remaining material is in "Observations from scholars", and I don't think that material should be merged "as-is." It's a set of sumamries of views by scholars, but it incorrectly gives the improession of summarizing those scholars views in toto. Doing so correctly would be impossible, or at least too lengthy. I suggest we review the source material and add viewpoints from scholars and other reliable sources to the relevant topics in this bio rather than in a separate section. The other parts of that article, "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members", could probably be merged in with little or no change. I don't think anyone really wants a "criticism" article anymore, we just have to make sure that all relevant material is included in this or another article in a neutral and balanced manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but my question was in fact entirely practical, on the short term do we use:
or do we use:
on top of the section that groups some of the criticism? Whether we will still be grouping criticism in a few weeks time is a different question, but doesn't solve the current problem of the lack of a decent link between two Rawat-related articles (both regarding the person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to do neither. I suggest we just go ahead and merge the last two sections in here, and redirect the title to this article. I don't think the remaining material is well-suited to direct merging into this article. After that we can add to this article whatever viewpoints we find that apply to biographical topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real mess. First the article is restored to pre-Arbcom state, and then that is partially undone. Now there are discussions about completing the merge, when we have not been able to stabilize the article. What do you think would be the result? Would it be stable or would it start another set of roundtrips to WP:AE? What happened to the mediation? Are we serious about it or it is just a smoke and mirrors exercise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to wait for the article to stabilize before making changes to it. As long as we proceed towards better articles then threats of WP:AE are unneccessary. If editors get into revert wars over material then WP:AE may be required. Mediation is not a reason to stop editing. As for the topic at hand, do you have a specific reason to object to moving the material in "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members" to this article, and then redirecting "Criticism of Prem Rawat" here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no specific objection I'll do that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object. To any links prohibited by BLP and EL policy.Momento (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material that I've outlined doesn't contain any prohibited links. Any other objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'll add some detail when you bring it over.Momento (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a case of assuming good faith (WP:AGF if you need the link) when you automatically assume that another editor's work will immediately need additions from you once it's done. However, it's probably a nice change to see you adding text for a change. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wait til you see the "praise" section.Momento (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That last remark sounds like an intent to disrupt the article to prove a point, which I hope isn't the case. Part of the "reception" material is a description of Rawat's following, which is an indication of the positive view many have of the subject. Anyway, I'll go ahead with moving the material over. The remaining summaries of scholars can be moved to a subpage in case editors find anything useful for this or another article. Hopefully this outcome will give us a NPOV article here and address the complaints about having a "Criticism of" article about a living person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

geroutiniseerd

Can one of the Dutch speakers explain this word? Is it even Dutch? "Routinised charisma" makes no sense in English. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't Dutch, if you keep to the Green Booklet, that's why I had originally put "[sic]" in the Dutch text, when I first translated it over a year ago (the translation included here is still basically mine, see /scholars#Schnabel 1982). In the mean while we had a discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article, which made clear it was simply the Dutch version of Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma (a direct reference to the Weberian terminology regarding charismatic authority). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just read up on it, but now two things become apparent:
1. It needs some serious contextualising if it is to remain in the article. As I said, the term is quite meaningless without the context.
2. The sentence from the above article, "However, the constant challenge that charismatic authority presents to a particular society will eventually subside as it is incorporated into that society" seems absurd when applied to Prem Rawat. He has, so all sources tell us, never been "incorporated" into any society so his charisma has not been "routinised." This would be an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Routinised charisma

I intend to delete the sentence containing this expression as misleading. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies unknown to most English speakers. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma, and as it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect it has no relevance to Prem Rawat. It is, at best, an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton, please cease the old bad habit of fragmenting discussion by creating new talk page sections for topics that are still active in other talk page sections, see above #geroutiniseerd (which you also started). [update: talk page sections merged 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)]
Re. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies - incorrect, it is a (stock) sociological concept: Max Weber who popularized the terminology was a sociologist. Schnabel, who is also a sociologist, makes a sociological analysis. "Charismatic authority", and its sub-terminology, is part of a sociological analysis of types of authority, not limited to religious figures (although Jesus is indicated as an archetypal example of this type of authority - along Mussolini and Hitler who respond to the same leadership type).
Re. unknown to most English speakers - The issue can be solved by hyperlinking: [[Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma|routinised charisma]], which renders as: routinised charisma.
Re. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma - it is not "rendered" as "inherited" charisma. Inheritance is one of the mechanisms by which the charisma of a charismatic leader can become routinized, see Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma. This is the specific routinization mechanism Schnabel indicates for Rawat, who "inherited" the satguru qualification from his father. Note that Schnabel writes "geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging)", translated in the footnote as "routinized charisma (hereditary succession)" - maybe we should stay closer to Schnabel's wording as less confusing?
Re. it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect - well, if a million people come to see you when you're celebrating the person whose charisma you inherited [19], then it's maybe not so absurd to claim some "inherited" routinized charisma might have been going on. But as I explained at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article Schnabel does not really study the Indian episode of Rawat, thus according to Schnabel: for the followers in America and Europe [the routinized (inherited) charisma] is hardly significant, or as it is summarized in the article currently: this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. That claim by Schnabel is, in fact, the same as what you try to say via the OR you presented on this talk page. Well, what's "exceptional" about it then? It's what a normal sociologist's analysis would claim. If you want to test it for WP:REDFLAG: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat is still open: I suppose you could start a new subsection to that section if you'd like to have more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Francis, the ref (2) I deleted made no mention of the name Sant Ji Maharaji. It added nothing of value to the lead. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering [...]" is in that ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-Navbharat_Times-1 --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Sorry. Rumiton (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

These edits [20] have multiple problems, which I will address later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snipped PA --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Since when a comment on an edit is a personal attack? Please do not refactor anymore my comments about edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor That is what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a personal attack either, but I also don't see any point to your original posting. If you're just saying "these edits are bad but I won't say why" that's unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was placed to alert other editors like yourself to comment on these edits. I have some pressing private issues to attend, and will comment on these edits as soon as I can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes for resolving your private issues. In the future it'd be better if you waited until you can give a useful description of purported problems rather than just posting an "I don't like it" message. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

I do not have time for a thorough review of all these edits, but these are the more critical:

  1. Rawat, rejecting theoretical knowledge as useless,[3] has been criticized for lack of intellectual content.[17][18][19] He is also criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]s replacing Rawat, whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma,[3][8] has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse,[17][18][19] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]
    The edit eliminates a source, and uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact. The previous version was more accurate and NPOV, and I gather it had some consensus behind it. Changes to the lead, in particular, given the editorial disputes that exist, would be best discussed in talk first
  2. From 1996 former followers speak out via the internet.[112][113]
    Violates Wikipedia:BLP#External_links. Sources used for that statement are sourced to self-published websites, one of them an anonymous, NN site.

Given that we are engaged in ann orderly debate about these articles with the assistance of the MedCab, which all editors have been informed of its proceedings, it would be wise to engage there rather than make changes to the lead without discussion and introduce additional disputes. We have our hands full already.

I would encourage all participants, to cool off and accept the fact that we need to reach consensus on this and related articles. Fighting for our preferred versions of the article will not produce the results we need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these topics is on the agenda at mediation. I'f you'd like to include them then feel free. I agree that edit warring back and forth is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1: "I gather it had some consensus behind it", no: it was edit-warred leading up to the recent ArbCom case: [21]. I'm restoring the version that had more consensus, and was more or less stable for several months before the final edit war leading up to the ArbCom case.

Please take it from there. I prefer the version I had made yesterday. The source eliminated was only proof for the organisations' take on the issue, not Rawat's. "uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact" is unclear. "The previous version was more accurate and NPOV", definitely not, and it is an OR version: combining "whose emphasis is on an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma" and "has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content [...]" is bringing two unrelated issues together as if they weren't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think the whole intro is poor and I'm not a part of any consensus for either version. I think it should be re-written from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice...

I can see that editors have rushed in and got Momento blocked. Round trips to WP:AE, will now become the currency of this page? I was under the understanding that we were conducting an orderly debate with the help of the Mediation Cabal, but it seems that certain editors rather than participate in the mediation debates, have chosen to force their hand via WP:AE. This does not bode well, IMO. 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be an anti-Momento bias here. Francis appears to have called him a liar in the above DLM article additions section ("that's the lies"), and yesterday PatW called him a "vandal", an "absurd POV pusher" and without "social conscience". (He self-reverted, but it stood for long enough to make his point.)

"It hasn't taken Momento long to get back into his old unwelcome tricks ie. removing material which has been discussed many times. When is someone going to stop this absurd POV pushing? And how? Will, you should know perfectly well what this vandal's standard is by now. Anything that is critical about his guru gets removed at the earliest possible convenience. What a complete farce. Also the guy has been criticised until the cows come home by almost everyone who comes here (visa vi the Arbcom evidence) and yet he carries on without a hint of embarassment. What does that tell me? He is probably working for Prem Rawat and is just following orders. Anyone who was an unbiased editor would have been long ago piqued by social conscience into being more reasonable. Also Momento is clearly laughing at you and Francis when you ask him your polite little questions. Do you really think he's going to give you a sensible answer? No he is plainly delighted at your impotence to stop him doing exactly what his bosses want."

In neither case was an objection raised by Administrators or Arbitrators. Please be more vigilant, guys. This slackness can not lead to a good article. Rumiton (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the above at midday and, regretting my tone, deleted it before 2. That's under 2 hours-hardly a long time. It seems rather mean for you to repost it. I would call that a 'personal attack' too.PatW (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you like, you can expect more of the same. The record shows you have contributed nothing of value to the article and have constantly sniped at those trying to improve it. On 26 December, John Brauns made a clear and culpable threat of blackmail against editors, then "apologised." The threat still existed. You are doing the same thing with your highly derogatory remarks, and reverting them isn't enough. If you ever do this again, whether or not administrators do anything about it, I will. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What record?PatW (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Momento did not discuss deleting the criticism section before doing so twice. Editor of this page should know that that is unacceptable and contrary to consensus. That said, let's try to stick to discussing the article here rather than each other. Personal attacks are inappropriate on any talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect it was probably a mistake to unprotect this page. I suggest reverting it back to the last "bad" version from when it was protected.[22] There've been a lot of changes with little discussion and no consensus. That's not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I will be out for a couple of days, so please revert to that diff and protect (or rewuest via RFPP) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objection, I'll revert to April and request protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I've left it as it was, pending input from other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problems need to be discussed one by one. Here is one...

...whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma...

Why does this keep getting deleted in favour of a negatively slanted version? A host of sources, from Hunt to Hummel, tell us this. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hummel, Reinhart. Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3, pp.76-77: "Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen...Von ihr bestimmt ist die Ablehnung äußerlicher Rituale und Zeremonien und die Forderung, das Göttliche im eigenen Inneren zu suchen." I will provide a translation if you need it. Can you suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead? Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Hummel says, or why folks are editng the text you list. But from my recent readings on the subject that summary appears mostly correct but obtuse. Rather than going back and forth between competing versions why not try to bridge the difference with a third version that will be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We need to start accepting the fact that we need to work toward consensus, and not towards our favorite version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I asked, "Can you (anyone) suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead?" I don't think I can. If there is no suggested improvement I will reinstate them, in the fond hope they might remain this time. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I also disagree with you that the sentence is "obtuse." Perhaps you are referring to the connection between the perceived lack of intellectual content in his teachings and the emphasis on "an individual subjective experience." To me this is the crux of the matter. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors disagree with your edit then just restoring the same material isn't helpful. I suggest drafting a version which encompasses both points of view. And if you want editors of the English Wikipedia to discuss a German-language source then a translation would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is my attempt, though the content is echoed by many other sources. The word Lehre is crucial, as it can mean either teachings or dogma, depending on context. I would say here it falls somewhere between. As a translator, I would solve this problem by using both English words alternately. Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings, both seeing [any] dogma as being more likely to be a handicap than an advantage...certainly from this (the Sant tradition) comes the rejection of external rituals and ceremonies and the call to seek God in one's inner self. Hence the wording that heads this section. Any other suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the translation is difficult then why don't we stick with English language sources? We certainly have plenty that describe Rawat's beliefs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings

I don't believe it is necessary to have about 30% of the material in this section. It is all quoted, or paraphrased, from the Teachings of article, which is referenced right at the beginning of this section. If someone wants to find out about more, it is one click away. This duplication of material seems to be spreading throughout the PR articles which only serves to make them appear longer than they should be. This section should summarize his teachings, which can be done quite easily by fluffing out something like "Originally drawn from Indian traditions, PR's teachings have evolved into series of meditation techniques that seek to help the practitioner achieve an inner peace by turning one's senses inward instead of outward. These methods are not indicative of any particular religion or lifestyle. The are subjective to each individual, and expected to be practiced and comprehended privately.". Suggestions, thoughts, flames, etc invited and expected. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Summary style, the "teachings" article should be briefly summarized. I'd think a paragraph would be enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm out for the evening, but unless someone else beats me to it, I'll see what I can do with it tomorrow. (Monday)-- Maelefique (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is correct to say that PR's teachings have "evolved into" the four techniques, rather that an accretion of Indiana that had built up around them was removed. The four techniques were always central to his teachings, as they were to his father's. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the arbitrary decision about one paragraph? An article may need more than one paragraph to be properly summarized, and I believe that is the case here. WP:SUMMARY ask us to summarize the article, and one paragraph may not do. I would suggest applying WP:LEAD in which it is asked that an article is summarized in four paragraphs. If an article can be summarized in four paragraphs for a full article, that could be the same measure applied for a summary spin-off article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD says "up to four paragraphs". The actual lead is a short paragraph:
  • Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques that he claims will allow the practitioner to experience peace, joy and contentment with regular practice.[1][2][3] He calls these techniques Knowledge and claims that Knowledge will take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you."[4] Practitioners are asked not to reveal these techniques to anyone else.[5]
The simplest solution would be to copy that here. If that's not complete maybe we shold make it complete and then copy that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of that article needs work as it is too short and does not summarize the article properly. I agree with you that interested editors can first go there to create a good lead and then copy it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ArbCom enforcement: Momento

FYI:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat. Interested editors may want to add their views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles fire brigade

I intend to get rid of this breath-takingly irrelevant nonsense. Any objections? Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the section you are referring to instead of making everyone go through the article to find it please? -- Maelefique (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of a fire brigade. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rumiton is probably referring to this passage: Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire.[53][54] Controversy around a helipad on the property[55] was resolved by installing emergency water storage for use by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in emergencies and by limiting the number of permitted flights.[56] Ah, I remember it well! As a group effort, it was worthwhile. But I don't think it is that important to the general reader looking for information on Rawat in this article. Jayen466 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I would object strongly to the deletion of that material which was drafted as a group effort based on reliable sources. As for its importance to readers, we have no way of judging that fact. We should use reliable sources as our guide for what to include in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have made this point before, Will, and others may have said, "What about intelligent editing?" Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ahh the good old days huh? I don't object to the removal of the "controversy", but I would object to the removal of the whole "lavish estate with a helipad" reference. Slap me on the wrist if you need to, but why do I think that's really what was going to be removed here...? Or first remove the controversy, then come back later and remove the estate with helipad as unsourced? Also, I'm sure my phone is tapped and the government reads all my emails, but lets stay on topic :) -- Maelefique (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm does not really help here, don't you think? It seems that the discussion is relevant and it is being conducted properly, so can we stay on topic? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in the lavish estate with its highly controversial and fascinating helipad, but the Fire Brigade? Please! Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the text you're talking about? There's no mention of a "fire brigade" in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization

This is very far from what the Dutch source says. I will change it tomorrow. God, this article is a freaking pigsty. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have the Schnabel/charisma related stuff in one talk page section please? See above #Routinised charisma, thanks.
I disagree that Jayen would've done a bad job when he summarized the following (see Schnabel footnote [23], quotation from p. 101-102, bolding added):

Tegelijkertijd betekent dit echter [dat] charismatisch leiderschap als zodanig tot op zekere hoogte ensceneerbaar is. Maharaj Ji is daar een voorbeeld van. In zekere zin gaat het hier om geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging), maar voor de volgelingen in Amerika en Europa geldt dat toch nauwelijks: zij waren bereid in juist hem te geloven en er was rond Maharaj Ji een hele organisatie die dat geloof voedde en versterkte.

translated as:

At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. Certainly, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (hereditary succession), but for the followers in America and Europe this is hardly significant: they were prepared to have faith specifically in him and Maharaj Ji was embedded in a whole organisation that fed and reinforced that faith.

...without excluding pre-emptively that improvements to the summary wouldn't be possible. Please see also discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article, where various alternatives were considered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Geaves, Melton?

In the teachings section it says: Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation, uncluttered by tradition in the vein of a contemporary Kabir or Nanak.[89][90] and this is referenced from Geaves and/or Melton. Such a particular and ceertainly flattering comparison seems to me to be likely made by Ron Geaves, himself a well-known and self-proclaimed devotee of Prem Rawat. I may be wrong but my guess is that Melton would not have said this. Can someone a) please clarify where this sentence derives from? b) Explain what the current thinking is about using Geaves here as a reliable source given his status as a significant follower?PatW (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this and the sentence in question is copied almost verbatim from Geaves. I'm not sure why Melton is listed as a source. I think we should drop Melton and attribute the view to Geaves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be assessed as "flattering"? In any case, page 220 of Melton's, has useful information that is related to that sentence, referring to "a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib", the Sant Mat tradition, and other material. Geaves material can be attributed, as we have (and need to do, if we haven't) with all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geaves is plainly and quite predictably making a flattering comparison. Kabir and Nanak are not Tulsidas anyway. I would judge Geaves' comments to be more personal wishful thinking than an academic and unbiased judgement. Do we hear Melton comparing Rawat to Tulsi Sahaib in any such way? Undoubtedly not. We know that Geaves believes Rawat is a great reformer 'uncluttered by tradition' and he has devoted a whole paper to 'bigging up' Rawat in a rather fanciful way. It's OK..it's to be expected but for goodness sake let's not pretend it's unbiased academic work. It's not. Also I might point out that when Geaves says 'Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation' - that may be partially true but why make Rawat out to be this fountain of unique wisdom when Rawat has actually for years peppered his 'Satsangs' with scriptural references? Geaves knows that but he doesn't say it because it doesn't help him prove his assertion that Rawat is 'uncluttered' and somehow beyond tradition. My academic friend's reaction to Geaves' paper is more blunt: 'It's just bullshit - Rawat came from a tradition and he's just continuing it - end of story'. 'Geaves paper is all about making out Rawat is special and many of his more fanciful assertions are highly speculative and obviously influenced by his personal feelings about Rawat.' So please, what is the thinking about using Geaves? If we do we should avoid including such obviously flattering 'opinions' of his. PatW (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the "Teachings" article - the summary in this article shouldn't contain assertions not found in the main article and the point is too minor to require mentioning here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that there was agreement to write a good lead for the teachings article and then use that as the summary for this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's an agreement that that would be a good idea. In the meantime the summary should not contain assertions that aren't in the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Would you work on a draft for a new lead for that article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not interested in that effort right now. As I wrote there, I think that article needs to be substantially expanded and rewritten but doing so is not on my agenda at the moment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I will give it a go, and post in talk for editor's comments. May take a few days, time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ArbCom enforcement: jossi

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Jossi launching subtle personal attacks --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton!

Deleting sourced material with an edit summary of "tweaked" is unacceptable. If you see something in the article you would like to change please discuss it on the talk page first, this is something I would have expected from Momento, not you. I am reverting your edits until there is a reason for them, not because I do not agree with them. There is no reason to act this way. -- Maelefique (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was removed? I see only this text removed: " in an arranged 2½ hour DVD presentation featuring Rawat's instruction. " I see no source provided by you, so the deletion may be warranted. Do you have a source for that statement? If so, please re-add and add the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That probably belongs in the "Teachings" article anyway. It's not biographical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The first sentence is sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the teachings article. What I object to was the 5 edits in a row with a summary of "tweaks". These were not tweaks they are definite edits, in some cases, changing the essence of the text. BTW, jossi, you as well as I know, EXACTLY where that is sourced from, and is sourced, in the Teachings article. Ever hear of "Cite needed"? -- Maelefique (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't know from where, Maelefique. And yes, {{fact}} could have been used. Now, please don't call my comment "disingenuous", it wasn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous, *YOU* gave me the source when I asked in one of the other articles. Do you want me to produce the diff? -- Maelefique (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's not biographical, it should stay in the teachings article. That's one of 5 edits that were made with a summary of "tweaks". I think it's slightly dishonest to make edits that way. -- Maelefique (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the edits, and get of your public relations kick please. If you don't find them slightly dishonest, you will continue to damage my ability to accept things you say in the spirit of WP:AGF, these are not tweaks. -- Maelefique (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and FTR, I was referring to {{Citation needed}} specifically, I find it preferable to {{fact}} in cases like this. -- Maelefique (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and get of your public relations kick please ???? Please cool it and remember the page probation. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that is a question or not you are asking me. Did you not understand the comment? and if you did not, why are you commenting on it afterwards? I cannot help but note that you do not disagree with any of my positions taken in this discussion. Therefore it looks a lot to me like you're just trying to run some "damage control", "spin", or as I mentioned a "public relations" exercise. Please see this and here and the trifecta here. -- Maelefique (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot read my mind, can you? So please keep your opinions of my motives to yourself, as it is simply not germane to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you cannot read minds, you shouldn't make assumptions. You are the one off-topic, *I* started the topic! "Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith." What kind of fluff is that? It says nothing, it makes no point, takes no stand, states the obvious, and wastes our time, please contribute... or don't. Do you consider stripping away text that alters the content and/or context of this article in general to be ok, with an edit summary of "tweaks"? Would you say that was "more helpful" to other editors or "less helpful" using an edit summary that implies nothing more than a minor change, when in fact it is a significant change? I don't think these are complicated questions. (and I used "germane" yesterday, it is pretty handy isn't it!?) :) -- Maelefique (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am! "Slightly dishonest," huh? Well I have never been so insulted in all my...OK, I'm kidding. But seriously guys. Were any of those edits really a problem? Most were the tweakiest of tweaks, one was inserting the name of the country his mother repaired to, which the article confusingly lacked, the most terrible was apparently shortening the repetive description of Key Six. Of course it was presented by Prem Rawat, we have already said all the Keys are, and the 2.5 hours long thing seemed just superfluous, or perhaps even promotional. It was not a "significant change," and there was no POV there, it was just an attempt to make this horrendous hodge-podge of an article a bit more readable. If we are going to agonise like this over every such attempt it does not look good. Let's discuss the important things. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to begin with, I didn't revert because I necessarily disagreed with the edits, and after thinking it over, regarding the 2.5 hours, I agreed with you that it didn't need to be there. What I objected to was the edit summary that made it look like you were fixing typos, and shifting a verb or something, when in fact you were deleting/adding material, then I got all excited and annoyed. Then jossi stepped in and stirred the pot a little more, even though he had nothing to contribute here (except to suggest I don't have a source for the material, which I got from a source he provided me with). In light of some of the other edits that have been going on around here recently, it would sure be helpful (I think) if your edit summaries were a little more explicit in their defining nature. And besides, a day without a controversy around here, how weird would that be?! -- Maelefique (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kaslow W. F., Sussman, M. Cults and the Family (1982), p. 10, Haworth Press, ISBN 0-917-72455-0
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schnabel1982 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Schnabel, Tussen stigma en charisma ("Between stigma and charisma"), 1982. Ch. V, p. 142
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=213764468"