Aechmea fosteriana

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.

• Talk:Millennium '73/sources

Goom Rodgie

The lead must reflect the article and no sources are provided say Rawat held or organized the event. On the other hand all scholars accept that DLM held and organized it.Momento (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Goom Rodgie"? Do we have a corroborating scholar for this tabloid stuff. If not it should go.Momento (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation of a foreign name is hardly "tabloid stuff", whatever that means. It has two reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is when it is so obviously wrong. What scholar supports Snell.Momento (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is it wrong? In addition to the two sources, one can also watch the Lord of the Universe video for direct evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of LOTU is OR. Who else beside Snell gives this spelling? Any way the article needs a lot of work.Momento (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the reference, Moritz also gives the identical pronunciation. Larson give almost the same pronunciation as well, though he spells it "Goomerajee". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why then did you leave out Larson?.Momento (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A) because two reliable sources seem sufficient for a minor issue, and B) because he spells it differently so it'd be more complex to give both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a minor issue. Dozens of journalists and dozens of scholars have written about Rawat without corroborating Snell's extraordinary claim that he was actually called "Goom Rodgie" by his American followers. And even if every American follower called Rawat "Goom Rodgie", that is still less than 1% out of a following of 5 million. You can't just choose to include the unsubstantiated opinion of one journalist as if it was common place. It either needs extensive crediting and context as well as Larson's version or it should be left out.Momento (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that, among other followers in other places at other times, the name was pronounced differently. This article is just concerned with this one festival so the way in which the name was pronounced at the festival is directly relevent to this article. The information is well-sourced and there are no sources that significantly contradict it. I'll add the Larson pronunciation per your request above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added detail.Momento (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for "no other scholars or journalists at the festival support this view"? That kind of assertion seems like OR and could be added to any article in a dozen places. Since we have three sources, plus a video, and no contradictory sources it seems a bit much to imply that this is a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an "exceptional claim" that needs "exceptional sources" i.e. a surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. Only Larson and Snell claim a mis-pronounciation of Guru Maharaj Ji and even they cpntradict each other.Momento (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:REDFLAG. This does not count as an exceptional claim. There's nothing surprising about it. Saturday Review and Current Biography are both mainstream sources. Claiming that this is exceptional in spite of good sources, and in spite of a video which uses the same pronunciation, appears tendentious. If you can't find a source I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing surprising about claiming Maharaj Ji's followers can't pronounce their own teacher's title? And the only sources a Christian evangelist and a free lance reporter. And what is "tendentious" about getting you to attribute this exceptional claim to a its authors? And what do you need to restore?Momento (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And just for fun I listened to the first minute of LOTU. One mahatma clearly and correctly pronounces "Guru" with an "R". And then Rennie Davis does the same.Momento (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are no sources provided that give another pronunciation, or which say that the sources are wrong. If you insist that this is a fringe viewpoint we can take it to the noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So following your current argument if an editor can find one journalist who said he heard supporters pronounce "Barack Obama" as "Boorack Oboma" then, in the absence of anyone saying how it is pronounced, that reporter is correct and that unique view should be presented as the correct and majority view. I think it's time for a little common sense.Momento (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All we can do on Wikipedia is summarize reliable sources. "Common sense" doesn't really apply whtn it comes to deciding how to pronounce terms in English, especially foreign terms. Just recently, folks wrote requesting help on how to pronounce Biden and Palin. Journalists are certainly capable of hearing how a name is pronounced and transcribing it. I don't see a need to attribute this information, it's not a POV, it's a simple fact. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no contradictory soureces, and since it's a bare fact rather than an opinion, I'm going to remove the tendentious attributions. As a compromise I'll replace them with "according to sources". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for an RFC.Momento (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Pronunciation

Discussion between involved editors

The question is over how to discuss the pronunciation of a name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The question is "Should a frivolous and tiny minority view be the only view presented"?Momento (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All significant, sourced views should be included, and they are. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the vast majority of people know how to correctly pronounce "Guru", as in "Guru Maharaj Ji" and followers of gurus certainly do. Therefore no one needs to tell people how it is pronounced. Except for two lone voices. One journalist in a crass attempt at humour (Goom Rodgie) and a fundamentalist preacher, famous for doing exorcisms on the radio (Goomerajee). Neither agree with the other but WillBeback insists these are "significant, sourced views". They are not linguists, religious scholars or experts in any field that would make them "significant".Momento (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep omitting Current Biography, which is a very reliable mainstream source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And what does it say?Momento (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the CBY text:

• As telescoped conversationally by American premies, Guru Maharaj Ji's name is pronounced "Goom Rodgie." The Guru's full name, with title, is Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji. According to the records of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, he was born Prem Pal Singh Rawat in Hardwar, India on December 10, 1957.
  • Moritz, Charles (Editor), Current Biography Yearbook 1974. New York, The H. W. Wilson Company, 1975. ISBN 0824205510

That does not give any indication that it is a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All it suggests is that Moritz took it from the journalist Snell.Momento (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a Morton's fork argument. If only one reporter notes it then it's a minority viewpoint. If more than one source notes it then they are just copying from each other. I suppose that if many sources report it then it's media bias, right? It's possible that the CBY editors found that pronunciation in the Snell article and if so that's an endorsement of the reporting. Anyway, the Saturday Review wasn't a gossip rag, it was a highly-regarded, mainstream magazine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside views

Telescoped pronunciations of many things are quite common. As an aside, I might mention that Western followers of Indian movements who adopt Sanskrit names don't seem to make any attempt to pronounce them correctly. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit more time. This is an example of Zipf's Law: common words are short, rare words are long. His followers talk about him a lot, so they tend to shorten his name. The version I've heard is Grumraji.

Should this be mentioned in WP? In some cases the shortened pronunciation is standard, eg Wymondham in Norfolk is pronounced Windam. In some cases even the spelling has succumbed to shortening, eg idolatry for idololatry. But simply loose speech? Maybe too trivial to mention? Peter jackson (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems Zipf's law isn't the right technical term here, but I don't know what is. Peter jackson (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. Maharaj Ji was more often Ma-raj-gee but Guru is almost always pronounced with an "R". And could by some become Gru-m-ra-ji as you have heard. Two sources, Larson and Snell, both antagonistic to Rawat offer their opinion. Larson is a christian preacher famous for exorcizing people on the air. Snell's opinion comes from an article "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush" and which he also offers""Hey, buster, you tryin to start sumpin', or sumpin'?" he said, speaking slow and steely, like Shane". Hardly literate, let alone a linguist. Both sources use their version of his name to poke fun at him which is not surprising but this is an encyclopedia and that is why I object to these trivial opinions.Momento (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on the town that Peter jackson mentions, Wymondham, lists its pronunciation right at the beginning. Pronunciation is important, and is mentioned in the context of the festival, amking it relevant to this article. However, as a compromise we could move the pronunciation to the Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's because it's pronunciation is at such a variance to the way it's spelt. And you can bet that the pronunciation was sourced from a linguistic authority not a free lance journalist and an exorcist. The opinions of Larson and Snell are insignificant and don't belong anywhere.Momento (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's why it's relevant here- because the name is pronounced differently than it is spelled. All three sources are reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me a linguistic authority not a free lance journalist and an exorcist.Momento (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You just added a citation from a freelance journalist to another article a few minutes ago.[1][2] Being a freelance journalist doesn't make ones reporting unreliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the only comment is " Maybe too trivial to mention?". I'm removing it until someone other than Will thinks it significant.Momento (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why "...other than Will..."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for adding it either.Momento (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's factual, well-sourced, relevant, and neutral. There's no reaso to delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to include this pronunciation info in the article Millennium '73. It might be at Prem Rawat (to which Guru Maharaj Ji redirects) - though it does seems rather insignigicant to me. - Of the first 50 items on the "What links here" list for Wymondham, only Wymondham Abbey and List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (and its talk page) seem to mention the pronunciation - even Wymondham College doesn't.--Noe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• While I disagree that the pronuciation of a foreign name is insignficant (four different sources thought it significant enough to include), I've removed the two pronunciations from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing encyclopdia = activity of "mind"

Two general concerns:

• Writing an encyclopedia in a collaborative effort is a rational activity. That is unavoidable. Otherwise said: rationality is pretty much at the core of the Wikipedian paradigm. Those of us who want to adhere to a Rawatian paradigm ("consistently reject[ing] 'theoretical' knowledge as 'useless'," according to Mangalwadi 1992), and think this is going to work if each of us only accepts his/her own intuition as measure of what can be done and what can't be done in Wikipedia, definitely need to look for another hobby.
• Pro-Rawat editors (but the same applies to former-follower-editors) often need to be protected against themselves. For example, there's some pushing to deteriorate the style of the intro and make it into a MoS horror, in favour of an illusory "order by importance of facts". Let me assure you, pulling that string puts Rawat in a way less favourable light, than an intro with an intelligble flow that invites to read the rest of the article. And even then, Rawat's name should be in the first sentence: the festival being connected to Rawat is imho more important than how many days it was etc. So if I'm going to revert to an earlier version of the intro now, really, that's for protecting overzealous supporters against themselves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am following this at a distance, but I would want to warn you that you are threading too closely into WP:NPA territory, by asserting that people that have Prem Rawat as a teacher, reject 'theoretical' knowledge as 'useless' (quoting Mangalwadi does not spare your responsibility for what you write). I would appreciate if you can put a sock on it, and play nice. I am trying to stay away from these articles, but if I see any further personal attacks or attempts to challenge editors based on your perceptions of their beliefs, I will bring this to the attention of WP:AE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"At a distance"? "Trying to stay away"? Let's see, you've edited the article, you've made posting to this talk page and to the peer review page, and you've nominated two images for deletion. How much distance is that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at a distance and keeping an eye on it for copyvios and other such. Do you have a problem with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any editors getting involved in a dispassionate, constructive manner. I was simply questioning the assertions of maintaining a "distance" and of "staying away". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the "following this at a distance" phase is over now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead (2)

Will, could you provide me with the sources that say "the festival was held by Guru Maharaj JI". All my sources say it was held by DLM.Momento (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission and Guru Maharaj Ji..." can easily be sourced to Special Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times, page 2: there Rawat (1) asserts that "This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission...", and (2) invites to join him (= Rawat) in realising the program of the festival.

FYI, at the time Rawat was associated with DLM (though not its administrative head), so if DLM holds a festival that includes Rawat. Expliciting Rawat is for readability so that the encyclopedia reader knows from the first sentence to whom the Millennium '73 article connects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So as far as Rawat was concerned the "festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission".Momento (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source for Momento.

• When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself the new master and started his own teaching. His global tour in 1971 helped to establish a large following in Britain and the USA. In 1973, he held what was intended to have been a vast, much publicized event in the Houston Astrodome. `Millennium '73' was meant to launch the spiritual millennium, but the event attracted very few and had little wider influence.
  • Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8.

I'm not tied to the exact language, though it is sourceable. I'd made an alternate proposal omitting the implication the Maharaj Ji was the host, but Frances is probably right that we need to give some indication of the relationship of Maharaj Ji to the festival and the DLM. There are several discrete layers invovled in this: Maharaj Ji was the spiritual leader of the DLM, however the AIID statement implies he's merely an invited guest. He was clearly the main draw, but he wasn't in charge of the actual orperations. How about something like:

• Millennium '73 was a free, three-day festival held at the Astrodome in November 1973 by the Divine Light Mission on behalf of its leader, Guru Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji was 15 years old and the leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time.

That captures the leading yet passive role of Maharaj Ji. The actual phrase might be wordsmithed: on behalf of..., to showcase..., to celebrate..., to provide a media event for..., as an occasion for the onset of a thousand years of peace courtesy of... Those are all accurate. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're heading in n the right direction. Foss & Larkin -"'The Divine Light Mission achieved prominence in 1973-74, receiving a substantial amount of coverage in the print and electronic media. Its festival in November 1973 ", Galanter "In 1973, the sect rented the Houston Astrodome for a celebration of world peace and religious rejuvenation, "Millenium '73", billed as" the most significant event in human history." Kent " On the application form for Millennium '73, the DLM's major media event of the early 1970s," Melton "After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,”.Momento (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear the majority of scholars claim DLM held the festival and that Davis and BBJ organized it and Maharaj Ji himself says "DLM organized it". That should be reflected in the lead.Momento (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted the proposed language, which clearly says that the DLM held the festival. We could add a line later on giving more detail about the organization, though we should keep it short. Perhaps simply saying the BBJ and Davis were the main organizers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the source for "on his behalf"? I'm happy to fix it if you're having trouble.Momento (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission in November 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The highlight of each day was the evening address by 15-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, today known by his given name Prem Rawat..Momento (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't include any information on the relationship between Maharaj Ji and the DLM or the festival. The current name of Maharaj Ji isn't so important that it needs to be in the first paragraph (we don't give the current name of the DLM either). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Maharaj Ji and DLM? It was founded by Bob Mishler, Maharaj ji was too young to have any legal connection with it He didn't organize the festival, he was invited to speak at it and did.Momento (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maharaj Ji was the spiritual leader of the DLM and the main attraction of the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I've made the change.Momento (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I moved the information about the nightly address to the other prgram info, because it's more logical there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please stop edit-warring "The highlight of each day was an evening address by Guru Maharaj Ji..." (or similar) into the first paragraph of the lead section (10:14, 9 September 2008 - 22:08, 9 September 2008 - 23:32, 11 September 2008 - 21:22, 14 September 2008). I see no consensus for that here on this talk page, nor do I think that a good idea. E.g., it puts the fact that Rawat spoke in the evenings before the fact that the festival was billed "the most significant event in human history"... (etc) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert all material because you disagree with one sentence. It is far more important to inform readers of Guru Maharaj Ji's presence at Millennium than the pick out one description of several about the event. If GMJ had not spoken there, no one would have bothered to describe it and this article would not exist.Momento (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Momento, the version before your change already said that Maharaj Ji was the main attraction. Moving the more detailed program information to the first paragraph doesn't make the material more readable. The descriptions of the event and they way it was billed are indeed important - Maharaj Ji appeared aat many festivals, but this is the only one that was promoted as the most significant in human history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we discussed and agreed upon the prior version. I don't understand why you made the change after agreeing to the previous version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't discuss or agree to the claim DLM was a "sect". Nor does agreeing to an improvement in one sentence signify agreement to all or indeed prohibit further improvement.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this edit of Momento. He says that he wants to have Maharaj Ji's presence prominently featured, and it is in the previous version that he himself edited. What isn't so important is that his presence was in the evening, or that there was also a band. That can wait until a paragraph of its own, which covers the actual program of the festival. The first two paragraphs should give the most basic information of what the event was and why it's notable. Lastly, the RfC is still open on the name pronunciation, so continuous changes there don't help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have removed the important info that Millennium was held by the U.S. branch of DLM. You have removed the important info that Davis was the vice president of the U.S. DLM. You have removed important context about the pronunciation according to the source. You have credited one person's opinion, Bob Larson's, as being from several sources. You have removed the fact that the pronunciation was confined to American followers. You have removed the important fact that GMJ took over the U.S. DLM as a result of the festival. And you have added that DLM was a "sect". And other material without discussion or consensus. Perhaps you can explain why you don't need to follow the rules you apply to me.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for it being held by the "U.S. branch"? The article still says that Davis was VP. There are three sources for the pronunciation, so it is appropriate to say "some sources". (But let's confine the pronunciatoin discussion to that section of this page). The fact that Maharaj Ji later took over the administration of the DLM doens't directly concern this festival. It is mentioned at the end, as part of the aftermath. I did not add that it was a "sect". Another editor added that it was a Hindu sect and I removed "Hindu". There are plenty of sources available for the term "sect", and I'd be happy to cite them. Or if there's another very short description that will clue in readers we could use that instead. Or we can go back to what we had before that helpful editor added it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity." from Melton. "Recent convert" is meaningless, "Vice president" is substantial. Again why did you remove "American"? You allowed "sect" to remain, why when it is just one of many descriptions? The sentence refers to "to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message" and the greatest of all was GMJ taking over. I'll make the changes.Momento (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Melton doesn't use the term you're suggesting, "U.S. branch". Obviously the festival occurred in the U.S. BBJ was one of the main organizers - what was his role in the "U.S." DLM? As for Davis, the point of mentioning him is that he brought attention to the event. Almost every reference to him in that context mentions that he was a recent convert, which is not meaningless, while almost none of them mention that he was VP. That is mentioned later on, in the paragraph devoted to Davis. How does the change in administrative control in December relate to the festival in November? Do you have a source for the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you said that the appearance of Guru Maharaj Ji was the most important aspect, but now you've removed it from the lead?[3] I don't understand your reasoning for adding and deleting material. PLease xplain this deletion and give a reason for why it shouldn't be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Melton is clear - after "beginning in North America, the Mission (It) rented the Houston Astrodome. Obviously referring to the Mission that began in the U.S. Millennium was full of recent converts but how many V-Ps were there.GMJ taking control relates to the words that precede it "The festival's failure, along with other factors, led to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message". You're right, GMJ should appear in the second sentence but not as a leader of a "sect".Momento (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's a silly point and the way you're presenting it is not far from original research, but if you really want to label it the "U.S. branch" of the DLM then go ahead. With Davis we can split the difference and mention that he's also a recent convert, which is what got the publicity. As for the mention of Maharaj Ji, how about we just go back to what we had before the helpful editor made his change. That would be: The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji was 15 years old and the leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time. That gives him a prominent mention, gives the significance of the movement and his connection to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't insult me by referring to the point I'm making as "silly". The DLM article says " Rawat defied his mother by travelling to the UK and the US, where local branches of DLM were established and rapidly expanded".Momento (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in you offer to "split the difference". Davis didn't get the publicity because he was a "recent convert" he got it because he was famous and the spokesperson.Momento (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the edit, which I think is silly. I don't think it's a necessary or helpful distinction to make in the first sentence of the article. All through the article we mention that BBJ was a leading organizer, a fact which you've previously insisted on including prominently. OTOH, we barely mention Mishler. So yes, I don't think it helps the article. As for Davis, yes, he was famous for being the spokesman, so let's put that in instead, good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the "silly point I'm presenting", that is "I am presenting a silly point" therefore I lack discrimination.Momento (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede: section break

Proposing to change (first paragraph):

...the Divine Light Mission. The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time.

to

...the Divine Light Mission (DLM), prominently featuring Prem Rawat, at the time better known as Guru Maharaj Ji. He was 15 years old then, and leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West.

(1) improved flow (I think); (2) avoids expression "main attraction" which reminds me rather of a show or another more wordly gathering (although that can be a subjective appreciation); (3) main character of the event in the first sentence; (4) no "surprise" link ([[Prem Rawat|Guru Maharaj Ji]] - readers are not supposed to be very acquainted with the subject in advance); (5) handled second remark of Ruhrfisch comments (peer review). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, except that I think "better known" is incorrect. The contemporary sources that I've seen, if they give an alternate name, give something like "Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji" or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". I think that just saying "at the time known as" would be more correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "...prominently featuring Guru Maharaj Ji, also known as Prem Rawat" because it featured Guru Maharaj Ji, not Prem Rawat. Nobody called him "Prem Rawat" until long after the festival. If we were covering a boxing match in 1960 we wouldn't say that Muhammad Ali was a contestant, because he was then called Cassius Clay. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP: as far as I know the person prefers to be called Prem Rawat. Whether he is "known" as such is of secondary importance (in other words: WP:BLP, a policy, supersedes WP:NCCN, a convention), but we correctly indicate the more prominent name at the time.

Further, we say (e.g.) Fibonacci, whatever the guy was called when he wrote his most famous book (as it happens, that book refers to him as "leonardo filio Bonacij Pisano").

As for living people, see e.g. how Wikipedia translates "Bhagwan" (as written in the used source) by "Osho" here.

All in all a minor (style) issue: but as people seem to expect "perfection" from this article, better get it as right as possible according to policy etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we want to follow WP:BLP, but I don't see anything there about post-facto name changes. Of course a major exception is Emperor Showa, who was called Hirohito in life. But that's because it is a tradition in Japan to rename emperors on their death and to only use the new name. There's no such tradition with gurus. But it's a minor issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"U.S. DLM" or "DLM"

What sources do we have that the festival was held by "U.S. DLM" as opposed to "DLM"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And what is the point of making the distinction anyway? Mata Ji, BBJ and GMJ were the administrative and spiritual leaders of the movement in all countries, weren't they? We don't say that earlier Hans Jayantis were held by the "Indian DLM", or that Hans Maharaj Ji founded the "Indian DLM". (At the end of the article, we do mention that the movement split later, but the movement hadn't split in November 1973). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're using both "US" and "U.S." Since this article also includes "UK", we might standardize on "US". Either way, but we should be consistent. I'll change them all to "US", but if someone wants to make them all "U.S." and "U.K." that's good too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

According to MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)#Acronym usage in article body): "U.S." - "UK", even on the same page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's allowed, but it doesn't look good. The main point is to make it consistent between "U.S." and "US". There's no good reason to use both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim copying

It is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policies to copy text from another source without marking it as a quotation.[4][5] Please either re-write the material in your own words, or, if the material is worthy of a quotaiton, mark it as a quotation. In my opinion, neither of these are worth quoting, though some of the material might be added in our own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have put it in quotation marks.Momento (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the Millennium Fever section because the way you wrote it Will it went straight from what Rawat wrote to a whole lot of wild and wacky stuff from others without any sense of separation.Momento (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The order before was 1) comments by leaders, 2) commetns by followers, 3) predictions of attendance. I'm not sure what the order is now. Why is it better now than it was before? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because your version went immediately from - "Rawat wrote in a letter" to "he reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space" - without making it clear that we had gone from fact to speculation. And worse, that it didn't make clear that it wasn't "reported" by a "reporter" but said by a follower to a reporter. But even worse, you omitted the rest of the sentence which goes - "although a premie has assured me that the latter prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". In other words it was completely distorted.Momento (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculation - it's a fact that members believed that the Astrodome would levitate. We can add more sources for it. I'll move the material back into logical order but modify that aentence to make it clearer who is reporting what. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, text from Maharaj was added that doesn't appear to relate to the runaway expectations that are the topic of the section. That material may have more to do with the general teaching of Maharaj Ji, rather than the expectations for this event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the Rawat letter from the Millennium Fever since their is nothing feverish about it.

Having a think about the whole "Millennium Fever" section, I think it's not NPOV. Collier says only a minority experienced Millennium Fever, so perhaps the heading should be "Expectations" and that would allow us to include a more balanced range of expressions.

Claiming that this would be the most holy and significant event in human history was one of the most widely reported claims about this festival. This letter gives us the assertion straight from the source. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any 3rd-aprty sources mentioning his assertion that, "In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism." Nor do I see that that has to do with expectations for the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't claim Millennium was "the most holy and significant event in human history". He was talking about the "festival (which) has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967. And this year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America". Anyway as I said above, naming the section :Millennium Fever" gives undue weight to a "minority of members" as per "Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue".Momento (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've revised your text about the levitation. There are two sources for it. Boyle writes about, the Houston Astrodome, which the guru promised would levitate at the close. So Levine says that the guru hinted, while Boyle says that he promised. I think that "said" is a good compromise between those two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Boyle comment, what page is it on please.Momento (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the heading, I think "Expectations" is a valid name too, but let's limit the contents of it to actual expectations, not other elements of the DLM's belief system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the levitation, there are many sources that attribute it generally to members or organizers, in addition to the couple who attribute it directly to Maharaj Ji. It appears to have been one of the more common "memes" of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is Boyles quote please.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the book again to find the page number. Boyle made the same assertion in a periodical archived on one of the Rawat-oriented sites, I believe. It's also on the cover of the LOTU video. We can certainly improve that citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The LOTU cover makes the claim but it doesn't appear in the video.Momento (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I neglected to record the page number in my notes, but I've requested the book again and will add the page number when I get it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remove it as a source?Momento (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I tracked it down - it wasn't from Boyle's book but from an earlier article that Boyle had written. I also found an even more explicit reference to Maharaj Ji's prediction in Greenfield. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

If any more quotes from Maharaj Ji or others are edited to support a particular point of view, this article should have non NPOV tag on it. For this article to claim that "Maharaj Ji is reported to have said etc" when in fact the source says that a reporter was "told by someone that Maharaj Ji had indicated etc" is a flagrant distortion.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are saying. All quotations are edited. As for your other issue, does this concern the levitating Astrodome? If so, there is more than one report about this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WillBeBack all quotes are edited but editing that changes to meaning is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The line was quoted perhaps dozens of times. Aside from that letter, I've never seen it that way. Perhaps we should just use another source and then there won't be a question of how to edit it. Editing it to promote our own view of its meaning might constitute original research ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Palace event?

From Price 1979:

Nineteen seventy-three was the peak year for the mission's activities both in Britain and the United States, when two major festivals were organised to rally the faithful and bring in new recruits. In Britain there was the Festival of Love at Alexandra Palace which drew thousands of premies and seekers,... (bolding added)

Shouldn't the Alexandra Palace event be mentioned in the Millenium '73 article, as the UK follow-up on Millenium '73? Are there other sources for the European event besides Price? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

They are an interesting pair but the Alexandria Palace event, which I believe was Guru Puja, took place several months before the Millennium festival. Mentioning it first would disrupt the narrative about this event, in my opinion. We do still have a section on the DLM article that covers the festivals, and gives the context. As for sources, I think Price is the only substantial source, but it is mentioned in a few other sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article's POV

I shouldn't have to correct errors every time a read this article. Sources are distorted and journalist's opinions are frequently given as facts and there is an over reliance on biased media. The anti GMJ bias warrants a POV tag and I have put it up.Momento (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please say what the specific NPOV problem is so that we can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's, whose opening description of GMJ is "He looked like a precocious Third World account executive on the make", sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes. Eight quotes from an article titled "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget". Another 8 from "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush". 20 quotes from the leftist Ramparts magazine. Plus material from ". "Singing Along With the Guru", ""I See The Light: In which a young journalist pushes a cream pie into the face of His Divine Fatness and gets his skull cracked open by two disciples",And where are the scholars? Messer gets 2 quotes, Galanter 2 and Downton, who wrote a book on this era of DLM, less the 20. The lack of balance is overwhelming.Momento (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article uses over 80 sources and over 400 citations. Richard Levine wrote a very thorough article. Many of the citations to Levine are in addition to other sources, confirming the reliability and notability of the assertions. David Snell was a senior editor at Life magazine and was writing for one of the most prestigious magazines of the era. Downton does report a bit on the festival, most of his work is on other aspects of the movement. Is there something more about the festival in Galanter that we should add? If you are asserting that there are unreliable source then we can take that to WP:RSN, but we've already discussed most of these. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about RS, it is about balance and neutrality.Momento (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific so we can fix it. What is unbalanced or non-neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, your objection to having so many citations to Levine doesn't appear serious considering that you added material from Levine on five occasions last week.[6][7][8][9][10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the over reliance on clearly sarcastic anti-GMJ articles, many quotes have been POV edited to remove positive material or edited to make them more negative, including Levine. Here are the five edits you refer to-

• you included Levine's "He reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space..." but you cut off the rest of Levine's sentence "...but a premie responded that the latter prediction was probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". Why?
• you included the trivial "After the end of the program volunteers hurried to clear the field of the stage and carpeting in time for a football game the following day between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers" but didn't include Levine's important observation that the premies "worked smoothly, efficiently, happily into the early morning hours, without a word of complaint or a note of friction". Why?
• you left out the opening question of Levine's press conference report "Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible? Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world". Arguably the most important question of the conference. Why?
• you removed Krassner's absurd but illuminating comment " that the Divine Light Mission was part of a huge ClA-directed conspiracy to destroy political opposition" from Levine's report of the Davis/Krasner debate. Why?
• I added more Davis for balance.

So there we have it, five edits where I have had to insert material that you didn't put in.Momento (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that 47 citations were too many, but 52 aren't enough? I don't understand why you say that there are too many Levine cites when you've recently added about 10% of them. Anyway, regarding these specific edits:

• Many sources report on the levitation of the Astrodome. The assertion of Lila only appears in the one source, so it seemed less important in that context. We already mention Lila several times elsewhere.
• We already mention the lack of friction in the next section. The material now appears repetitive.
• There are many quotations from the press conference, but I chose to use only the questions and answers that had multiple sources. This article is loing and it seems like a reasonable way of limiting content.
• I thought the CIA allegation was included in the assertion that the DLM was part of a government conspiracy. Again, there are many things that Krassner said in that debate, including the question about Maharaj Ji's masturbation. I suppose we could argue that much of it is "absurd but illuminating", however I thought it was something we can leave out. When i was drafting it the debate seciton was longer but it seemed like a good place to cut. Do you think we should include all of that?

If your complaint with the POV is just "too much Levine" then you should take down the tag. You can't add a source one week and complain about it the next week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is too much Levine and too much trivia in general.As you say this article is long and a reasonable way of limiting content would be to remove such drivel as " One rumor said that a newborn baby in Houston had cried out "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "The Lord has come" and then died.[71][4] Followers perceived the predicted appearance of Comet Kohoutek as another omen.[4][32][63] Some members believed that the comet was a spaceship on its way to Houston, while others saw it as the return of the Star of Bethlehem.[4] Members said its name meant "KO Houston Texas", as in "knock out".[72][4][63] An astrologer pointed to a special alignment of the planets during the festival.[4][32][63] One member used a Ouija board to contact Venusians who planned to attend purportedly "because they're from the planet of love and Guru Maharaj Ji is the source of love in the universe."[4][63]. It is all adequately covered with "Many members had "bizarre", "runaway expectations", the rest is undue weight given to the claims of, in some cases, one individuasl. Momento (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine accounts for fewer than 1/8 of the citations, 10% of which you yourself added. I disagree with your assertion that using one source for an eighth of the citations is undue weight. As for the particular text you copied above, it is all properly sourced and neutrally presented. Simply telling readers that there were bizarre expectations isn't sufficient. Since we ahve the sourced examples of the expectations we should share themn with readers so that they can make up their own minds. Please re-read WP:NPOV before you assert that this article violates that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this labelled as a "POV edit"?[11] All it does is split a sentence into two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you splitting a quote in two in the first place?Momento (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For readability. Why did you label it a "POV edit"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because originally you changed Levine's quote by claiming "GMJ reportedly predicted" when in fact it was "a follower that had reportedly claimed that GMJ". And you left out the second half of Levine's quote which was "although a premie has assured me that the latter prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing." The result of your edit is A) to suggest that the levitating claim came from GMJ when it came from a follower and B) remove Levine's qualifier that it was a joke. If this was the only incorrect edit in this article we could accept it as a mistake but this article is full of them.Momento (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The only difference between those edits is the word "but" and a period. How is that a "POV edit"? As for the levitaiton claim, it is attributed to the Maharaj Ji. Greenfield gives an even clearer attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. You incorrectly claim that a follower said it "may have been" a lila when in fact the reporter was "assured me that the prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". This could just be careless editing on your behalf but the clear pattern is that all your errors fall on the side of creating a negative POV of GMJ.Momento (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the edit, but even so I think "may have been" and "probably" are virtually synonymous. Is the difference between them worth the NPOV tag? Now that that's fixed can we remove the tag? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually synonymous? Probably = in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt. And "maybe" = perhaps, possibly, conceivably, it could be (that), it is possible (that), for all one knows". If you can't see the difference between those words, you haven't the discrimination to see the difference between a good Wiki article and this thing.Momento (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. Now that that's fixed, is there any specific reason to keep the NPOV tag on the article?

There are dozens of similar mistakes that need to fixed. I'm making my way through the article correcting errors like the above and when it's fixed we can remove the tag. If you'd like to help you can fix some of your mistakes yourself.Momento (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing any mistakes I find. But mistakes that we haven't found yet aren't reason enough for an NPOV tag. If there are no active POV disputes we can remove the tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very little has changed since the NPOV tag was put on this article. I am starting to fix the many errors that show a pattern of POV pushing and it needs a lot more work before it reaches an acceptable Wiki standard.Momento (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for the tag now being on the article? Please be specific so we can address your concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good example of POV editing. You have used part of a Downton sentence to support "some premies made "many rather bizarre, "cultic" predictions" but you left out that part of the sentence that says that rumor of "the possible appearance of ETs was spread in half-jest". You have put in half a dozen references to ETs without letting readers know it was done in "half jest". That's POV pushing by omission and this article is full of it.Momento (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you're the one who added the text, "many rather bizarre, "cultic" predictions".[12] To make an edit and then blame me for it is unhelpful. If there are no specific issues that need to be addressed let's take down the POV tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As is obvious from my statement above, I'm not objecting to the Pilarzyk/Downton paraphrase, I'm objecting to the fact that from day one of this article you were happy to use some of Downton's sentence but carefully omitted from the entire article Downton's important point that the ETs was rumors were spread "in half-jest". You mischaracterization of my comment is harassment. As is your badgering to have this NPOV tag taken from this lop sided article. Don't do it again.Momento (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a POV tag up for no reason then I will continue to seek its removal, just as I'd seek to remove any invalid tag. As for the "'cultic' predictions" text, you added it so I think you shouldn't complain about it. This is like adding 5 citations to Levine and then complaining about having too many Levine citations, or adding hundreds of words and then complaining that the article is too long. Getting back to the topic, why is there a POV tag on the article? What specific problems are there that make this article violate WP:NPOV? Let's list them so we can fix them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't neutral as my many corrections indicate.Momento (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What still needs to be corrected? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are no specific violations of [WP:NPOV]] I'll remove the tag. While I'm sure there are other small mistakes in the article (nothing is ever perfect), small mistakes don't necessarily violate NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, I don't see any viable reason for this article to have a violation of NPOV tag. I think this is a very good article that has been fully cited. It's not the fault of editors if the Millennium 1973 received negative press and writings by the NRM scholars. It is what it is and one can't expect to slant it otherwise. Therefore, I think the tag should be removed (please do the honors) :). Hey, I hope you're well, Will. Autumn is in full peak here in Vermont and we're having the most vibrant and breath-taking foliage that we've had in years! We've already had two hard frosts and that brings out the color even more. Sorry, it's not something that can ever be described in words. Best wishes and be well, Cynthia Sylviecyn (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Momento hasn't identified a NPOV violation despite requests going back at least to September 28, there NPOV tag appears unnecessary. I'm going to remove it. I request that anyone who restores it be ready to give a specific description of the NPOV violations before restoring it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Red herring. Per WP:NPOV: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Basically, an article can be POV even if fully cited. This article is a good example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please specify where this article violates WP:NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, there's no answer to the longstanding request for where the purported NPOV violation is in this article. Are there no outstanding POV issues? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I am still correcting the POV bias. For some reason you didn't include Collier's eye witness account of why Millennium was called Millennium, an incredible omission. Likewise, GMJ's view on the ET rumors is an excellent counter balance to the media hype. And I will continue working on this article to redress the POV bias until it is fixed.Momento (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, how does this article violate POV? You haven't said. If you can't come up with a specific POV problem then I'm going to remove the tag. You placed it two weeks ago and have not given a clear justification for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions". As the edit history clearly demonstrates, you left out an enormous amount of important material that I am putting in.Momento (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask, what part of this article violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: there is an inherent POV in then way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, the lack of historical context, and so on. What is the rush? Take your time and work with others to fix the bias. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No rush, but this article has been here a month. If you still can't point to any particular passage that violates NPOV then your assertin that it violates WP:NPOV appears unsupported. Again I ask, where is the NPOV violation that justified adding the tag? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are quite specific. In any case, from what I see, you and Momento are making good progress in balancing the article, so keep going until such time in which you both will be satisfied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's vague. Can you point to a passage that violates NPOV? If not, then where is the violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a passage that violates NPOV? If not, then where is the violation? The violation lies as per my argument. How many times one has to repeat it? -- The article fails NPOV, in then way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, and the lack of historical context. Close to a WP:COATRACK than an encyclopedic and neutral article. Not all is lost, however, it is salvageable if editors attend to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection. I will continue to improve it.Momento (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, can you please point to a passage that violates WP:NPOV? I've been asking you since 9/28. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack Will. I think most editors will agree that if you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, no one will be able to explain more complex issues like bias to you. This is not the first time I have had trouble getting you to understand a perfectly clear argument. Here's me trying to explain to you that I don't think Collier "is the most reliable source we can use" and your totally opposite characterization of my argument.

• Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.Momento (talk), 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet after denying that that "Collier is the most reliable source available" three times just two days earlier, he wrote to another editor -

• Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

I think every one will excuse me if I don't continue this endless argument with you Will.Momento (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

None of that answers the question: what part of the article violates WP:NPOV? Since you have not answered I take it that you do not think any part of he article violates NPOV and so I will remove the POV tag. You are welcome to restore it if you can point to a single violation of the policy that hansn't been fixed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the threats? There are arguments presented that say this article is not close to be a neutral presentation of the subject. You obviosuly disagree, so what's new? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not threats, just announcements. And no, there haven't been any arguments that say what specific text in this article in non-neutral. Can you answer the question? I feel like Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin. When I ask questions there are responses, but they don't answer the questions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - {{POV}} tag removed. There is zero specific rationale given on the article's talk page as to any purported issues with WP:NPOV (or how to address this), merely a vague assertion. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Undone. There is no consensus for the removal of the tag as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What arguments presented? There has been zero specific rationale given on the talk page for the tag, just vague generalizations. The burden is on the user that placed the tag, not the other way around. Therefore the tag should be removed. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is something called WP:CONSENSUS, so what is the rush in removing a POV tag? Momento and Will BeBack are slowly addressing the issues, so it should not be long until such time in which the tag can be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But there was never any consensus for the tag in the first place. And as no one has explicitly given specific examples of purported POV, and the burden is on the user that placed the tag, and it has been seven days with still no specificity given, your restoration of the {{POV}} tag was inappropriate. Please remove it. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, please don't add a POV tag to this artilce unles you're willing to help idntify and fix the problems. You say that Momento and I are addressing the issues- why aren't you also addressing the issue? Please participate in the thread below, POV2, where we can address the problems you identified. If there are no responses we can start crossing items off the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am the source of peace in this world"

• Then in 1966, the night Shri Hans dies, Maharaj Ji hears a voice that says, "You are he, you are the one to go and take this Knowledge to the world," and Mata Ji weeps for joy, knowing that her husband "had indeed kept his promise that he would never leave her." Four years later, at the annual celebration of his father's birthday in New Delhi, Guru Maharaj Ji "reveals his plan" to a crowd of over a million people: "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world."
  • Levine 1974
• When a 12-year old boy announced, "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world," not very many people believed him.
  • "History of Hans Jayanit", And It Is Divine, November 1973

Momento prefers another version of the same quotation. That's fine, but it's inappropriate to leave the citations to the other version. I'll go change the citations. Please be more careful with cites. And please don't say something is a misquotation until you've checked the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the quote provided in a translation of the speech from the 1972 issue of AIID.Momento (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one version, though not the version printed in the Millennium AIID. Isn't that the more appropriate version, since this is about the Millennium? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're quoting a speech then a full translation of a speech would be a more accurate source than someone's paraphrase. Momento (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the 1972 AIID quote was accurate while the 1973 AIID quote is an inaccurate paraphrase? What's you're basis for drawig that conclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article says " Guru Maharaj Ji delivered his "Peace Bomb" address to a gathering of 1 million people, at which he said...", it therefore follows that we should use his words from the speech not someone else's paraphrase.Momento (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the 1973 AIID quote purports to be his words too. Anyway, I don't mind using one verison instead of the other. Just please don't change the text while retaining the citations to the old text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then-member Sophia Collier later wrote that...

Why was "then-member" deleted?[13] Without that text the reader will have no idea who Collier is or why her statement has any bearing. We identify other people, such as Mahraj Ji, Bal Baghwan Ji, Bob Mishler, Downton, et al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't identify reporters or the media they work for, or who are Christian writers or whose writings have been criticized by other scholars, all of which would help readers evaluate what they are reading.Momento (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is unhelpful to reader to simply say, "Collier says..." without indicating who Collier is. I don't think we do so anywhere elese in the article. If we do we should fix it. We do say that "A reporter said..." or "a member said..." or similar expressions that indicate the role of the writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Expectations section

I reverted a set of edits to the "Expectations" section.[14] Many of the edits added material that was already included elsewhere in the article. For example, the explanation of Hans Jayanti, or the jokes about the ETs. Others added material contrary to what the citations say, or deleted material while leaving the citations. Finally, I re-added and re-worked the section intro that Momento drafted.[15] that part has grown, so I don't want to hear about the article being too long. I again ask Momento to be more careful about the citations when adding or deleting material. Also, I request that he read the entire article before adding material, as he keeps adding things that are already there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You need only look at the "Verbatim Copying" section to see that you revised my text claiming "Boyle writes about" when in fact after several queries from me you admit "- it wasn't from Boyle's book". So please stop harassing me with your requests to be more careful about citations.Momento (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation in the text for that was always correct, "Boyle 1985". It just took me a couple of days to remember what that citation went to, which had been omitted from the list of references. It's not too much to ask that you be careful, is it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is when you see how many errors of yours I have had to correct.Momento (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What errors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's take just the first sentence of this article. You wrote "Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission and Guru Maharaj Ji (aka Prem Rawat) in November 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas". In doing so you claimed that Millennium '73 was "festival held by the Divine Light Mission" when it was held solely by "the U.S. branch". And that is was held by Guru Maharaj Ji , which it wasn't. That two errors in one sentence.Momento (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Denver, Colorado DLM was called and considered "DLM International Headquarters" or "IHQ." It was also called "U.S. National Headquarters" but more often Maharaji himself referred to Denver as "IHQ," (most likely because he lived in the U.S.), hence so did everyone else call it IHQ. Denver IHQ was also called "DLM IHQ" when it moved its operations to Miami Beach in the late 70s, which corresponded with Maharaji's move to Miami Beach from Malibu so he could manage the DECA B707 project in late 1978 or early 1979. DLM was never considered a "branch of DLM." I worked at both DECA, as well as DLM IHQ in Miami Beach (where I worked in the Legal Dept. on Alton Road, Miami Beach). See Price Maeve's Divine Light Mission as a Social Organizaiton, which refers to DLM's "International Headquarters." Joe Anctil, DLM's spokesperson, always referred to Denver DLM as "International Headquarters," as did Michael Dettmers, and every other premie in the U.S. There are plenty of resources that refer to DLM Denver as IHQ. Btw, I never heard of DLM Denver referred to as a "branch," nor have I ever heard of any of the other established DLMs referred to as "branches," i.e., Australia, Europe, UK, or any other DLMs around the world. They weren't branches of each other, rather, the various DLMs were established as separate legal entities within their own counties, with no legal association to the Denver DLM IHQ. They were their own national headquarters, not branches. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. DLM is still the DLM, so thayt's not an error. We have a source that says it was held by the Guru, so that's not an error either. (See Hunt 2003, text posted on this page). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can find a reliable source that says the stage was 300 feet high, therefore poking through the roof of the Astrodome. Our job as editors is to see the big picture, through multiple sources and provide our readers with an accurate and balanced article. It is not to promote and use only those sources that suit our POV.Momento (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and we include that in the article. Are there sources that we don't include that we should? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the ET stuff from the "Media" section in the "expectations" section with all the ET material. And BBJ's ET quotes with his other quotes. The Downton material now ties it all together very well.Momento (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not helpful. The "Expectations" section includes things that happened before the festival. The material you moved includes things that happened during the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep making that change without consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From day one of the article you happily used the first part of Downton's sentence "that some followers had runaway expectations" but now you don't want to use the rest of the sentence about "rumors spread in half-jest". Please explain your logic. Likewise you are happy to use some of Levine's, Morgan's and Collier's comments from people at Houston but, strangely, don't want to accept my choice of quotes from Levine, Morgan and Collier. Don't you find that really odd, I do?Momento (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Where have I complained about adding "half-jest"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Up in the POV section. But please explain your logic on why you can include Levine's, Morgan's and Collier's comments and I can not.Momento (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you couldn't include material from those authors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor just added this:

• According to Bob Mishler, the President of DLM, Maharaj Ji said that "The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here".

What is the relevance of that to the Millennium '73? There's nothing in this article, or anything I remember reading about the festival, that deals with humans flying to other planets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OR - putting words in GMJ's mouth that may very well be Mishler's own (see below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear, unambiguous and attributed description of GMJ's view of where peace is to be established, that is in our own lives on planet earth. Not in a levitated Astrodome, not with ETs, not in UFOs, not with Venusians. All of which you included in the expectations section.Momento (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that GMJ has many views on where peace is to be established, but those belong in Teachings of Prem Rawat. I don't see how this concerns the Millennium '73 festival. I'll move it to the appropriate article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It directly concerns Millennium because it comes in this context. Bob Mishler about Millennium in an interview says "I was only expecting 20 or 25 thousand, but it was like calming a team of wild horses to stop the predictions of hundreds of thousands and the Astrodome taking off into outer space. To an extent, that sort of thinking is still with the premies, but not nearly as much as before. Many premies are having a broader and deeper awakening of practicality in terms of realizing this Knowledge and understanding what human life is all about. The question Maharaj J originally put to us was, "What is the aim of human life?" The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here". It sourced and it's relevant. Enough said.Momento (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not "enough said". You've not given any explanation for the connection between this quote and the festival. We have an entire article devoted to the views of Prem Rawat, and this is just another view. You've already said you think the article is long, so let's not add extraneous material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The core of Mishler's 1974 comments on "expectations" (in the Mishler & Donner interview), that is, the sentence starting with "People who came with expectations..." (my bolding) wasn't even mentioned in the expectations section, despite the expectations section already having two quotes from that interview. I grouped it a bit, left in still a rather large part of the quotes [16] - and am now suggesting to trim the Mishler quote in the expectations section: yes, maybe the ""What is the aim of human life?"..." paragraph could go: it isn't very clear on whether the answer to GMJ's question is GMJ's (I don't think so, so we shouldn't pass it as such) or Mishler's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However I suggest moving the last part, about disappointment, to the last section, where we already quote Mishler and others on their feelings after the festival. I think it's best, to the extent possible, to keep this article in chronological order. The "expectations" section should be kept, in my opinion, for dealing with what people expected before the festival happened. I'd also remove the line The question Maharaj Ji originally put to us was, "What is the aim of human life?" , which isn't necessary in this context and which, as Francis points out above, may be Mishler's words in GMJ's mouth. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's really disproportionately long. It is by far the longest quotation in the article, even though it only appeared in in-house magazine and wasn't reported by the wider media. While Mishler's POV view is significant, it doesn't deserve that much space. What are we gaining over just quoting a few phrases of his? We'd already quoted him as saying he tried to put the brakes on expectations for the event, but he still thought it important. A couple of lines is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Again, I ask editors to be more careful with citations. This edit [17] added material with an incorrect citation. If an editor doesn't know the page number then they should leave that field blank. Using incorrect references can screw up an article quickly. We saw that with Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this section can continue. Originally a biased titled "Millennium Fever" section, it focuses solely on a minority view, thus giving undue weight to a minority and violating the biased structure section of NPOV. If it can't be made too conform it will have to go.Momento (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Every viewpoint we have a source for is represented. GMJ, BBJ, Mishler, Davis, Collier, et al. Which viewpoint isn't included? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority viewpoint.Momento (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As found in what source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Pilarzyk (some premies) and Downton (some premies) and Collier (minority of premies). You have created a section called expectations and only used material about "some" and a "minority". It must be fixed.Momento (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We note those views already. As for minority views versus majority views, it is reasonable to assume, though hard to prove, that the views of the majority of Americans at the time were consistent with those of the media covering the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume you know what people are thinking, it is OR and unwelcome, particularly when scholars are clear to indicate it isn't the majority. The fault is in the structure your created. Back, promotion and expectations would be better merged. I'll have a look at it.Momento (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the DLM isn't the majority of the US or the world. The two sections cover different topics. "Promotion" covers what the DLM did to promote the event. "Expectations" covers what the DLM expected from the event. Both sections are long so merging them would not be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

POV2

• there is an inherent POV in the way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, the lack of historical context

the way that material is presented

Resolved

 – No unresolved issues left.

Which is material presented in a way that violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there's been no response on this tiem I'll assume we can cross it off. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any active problems under this topic so I've marked it as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

choosing of specific material at the expense of other

How about you start with something easy. You've seen fit to include comments from an astrologer, a woman with a ouija board, the rumor about the baby etc, why don't you include a comment from the tennis pro/author, the neuropsychologist, the wife of A.J.Russo? That would add some much needed balance, don't you think? Momento (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was starting with something easy. Can you provide more information on this material. I'm assuming that the tennis pro is Tim Gallwey. Who are the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Gallwey/Galloway and Bob Hollowitz are quoted in Morgan and du Plessix Gray, but I don't see where they say anything in particular about the festival itself. Hollowitz's actions at the press conference are interesting, but probably not encyclopedic. We can mention that they were in attendance. Can you point to specific comments or actions of theirs that are relevant to this article? I'm still trying to figure out who A.J. Russo is. His wife was at the festival? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Their comments were made at the festival and that is enough to warrant inclusion.Momento (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could add a paragraph on things that members said to reporters, but not all of them are as well spoken as Gallwey so it'd be a mixed bag. Who is Russo? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through and found some material from Premies at the festival. See Talk:Millennium '73/sources. I don't see anything there that's obviously necessary to add to this article. Most of the substantive comments are about the DLM or the teachings of Prem Rawat, not Millennium '73. I can't think of a criteria to decide which to add, or why. Perhaps Jossi and Momento can explain what material about the festival that they think needs to be added. Since the article is already long, additional material needs a good justification and should be kept as short as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The first step to shorten the article would be to delete the drivel from the astrologer who is not talking about the festival in particular and the baby rumor etc. It's just sensationalist gossip that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The astrologer was talking about the festival, and is mentioned in several sources. As several sources also point out, there were amazing rumors going around. We report rumors when they are properly described as rumors and are a significant point of the story. Now, getting back to this topic, what is you and Jossi want to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Expectations is unbalanced because you have only included minority views. I'll give it a complete going over in the next day or so.Momento (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We cover the views of GMJ, BBJ, Davis, Mishler, and members. What views are left to cover? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

historical context

I'm all for addressing any problems with the article. Let's start with the last first. What do we need to add? More background on the movement or its personnel? More about the media perceptions of purported cults? More about the history of the Astrodome? Those are all topics that have articles of their own, so whatever we have here should be kept minimal - just enough to provide the necessary context for the event. One thing I noticed while reading accounts of the event were the references to Nixon and Watergate. And there was a big crisis in the Middle East. Does the article need more about the other events going on in the autumn of 1973? What historical context does the article need to scratch that one off the list? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a question about Nixon to the Krassner/Davis debate, and a question about the Middle East to the press conference. Do we need to add anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to include that GMJ was breaking away from his family and why.Momento (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's already included in the the last paragraph. There is very little information in reliable sources on tensions prior to the festival. Collier speculates on the matter, but that doesn't seem like a sufficient source since it's just speculation on her part. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been happy to use less reliable sources. Melton also talks about GMJ's growing independence.Momento (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which Melton? He's written on the DLM in several different works. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

insults

There should also be a section on the various insults used by the cynical media - precocious Third World account executive on the make, fat, chubby, etc.Momento (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So our readers know where the press is coming from.Momento (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have quite a bit on the press and the respective attitudes of the media and the DLM. See the "media coverage" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not enough and their attitude needs to be mention in the expectations section.Momento (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "expectations" section covers what happened before the festival. The expectations of the press were pretty much determined by the statements of Davis, BBJ, et al. If we compile a list of epithets for Guru Maharaj Ji we can also add those to the Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow Brigade

We also need a section on the Rainbow Brigade.Momento (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We already do. See "Event". Have you read the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created a separate section like you did for WPC.21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can just add a new subheading, since that entire paragraph is about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shri Hans Humanitarian Services

Need a section on this including origins etc, like WPC section.Momento (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)