Talk:Prem Rawat

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.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1, /TPRF
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

New subsection for "Reception" section (proposal)

To be inserted after the "Charisma and leadership" subsection

===Cult leader?=== Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, and anti-cult writings. Associating Rawat with the term "cult leader" is disputed on several grounds: The movement that developed around Rawat is not a cult. Whatever the movement, Rawat is not its leader. Further, that possibly unclear aspects in this sense (for example referred to as "Hindu/Indian trappings") were removed by the early 1980s at the latest. The discussion of whether or not the movement has cult-like characteristics is at least partially a semantic discussion. For instance, Maeve Price and Roy Wallis distinguish between sects and cults, where the first is characterized by epistemological authoritarianism and the second by epistemological individualism, from which Price concludes that the term sect is more indicated in the case of the Divine Light Mission. General reference sources may however use the word cult in connection to Rawat's movement without such distinctions. At least formally, Rawat was not the leader of most organizations around him: when he became Satguru for the adherents of DLM in India in 1966, the practical leadership of that organization remained in the hands of his family members for several years to come, and would become consolidated as such in 1974. The DLM organization founded in the United Kingdom in 1970 was controlled by his mother for the first years of its existence. The U.S. DLM was not founded by Rawat either (he was still a minor at the time), and even after it had been reformed to Elan Vital in the early 1980s Rawat was not formally its leader. In general terms, however, Rawat's leadership with regard to the movement around him is asserted in most sources.

The refs are maybe still a bit sketchy, but hopefully clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much OR and SYNTH for my liking. Jayen466 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And no context or fairness.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Associating Rawat with the term "cult leader" is disputed on several grounds:" is ridiculously NPOV. No one is "associating" they are saying he was/is a cult leader!

"Disputed on several grounds?" Serious POV push. Why not just report the facts, like: "And other disagree, saying: <nice ref>, <nice ref>." Hohohahaha (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionnary, CULT is “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and SECT is “a dissenting or schismatic religious body, especially one regarded as extreme or heretical; b: a religious denomination”. If a cult or sect is a “system of religious beliefs and rituals” or a “dissenting schismatic religious” body, a club of para-psychologists, UFO fans, spiritists, organizations of pscychological or spiritual studies, etc. are not sects.

Who decides what is a cult or sect and what not? It is of course a problem of semantics, just like the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of the same Bible with different semantics. A Spanish dictionary gives Islam as example of a sect, but whatever dictionaries, sociologists or psychologists say, what most people understand by “cult” and “sect” is a 1) more or less small religious group with 2) a specific life-style, 3) usually living separately in a community, 4) following a set of rules, as the Merriam-Webster mentions, usually "extreme" and 5) where freedom is often more limited than for believers of traditional, large, standard religious churches. People make dictionnaries, not scholars.

Prem Rawat has clearly and repeatedly declared that his (inner) Knowledge is not a religion nor a philosophy, does not ask anyone to stop or start believing anything, no dogmas, no rules, no rituals, no liturgy, no change of lifestyle, so why is this a sect? Prem Rawat only asks to practice at least one hour every day, alone, at home, in silence. I see this closer to a club than to a sect Osho Baghwan style. Both were born in India but there is almost nothing else in common. How easily we generalize. In the Spanish version I have read an ex-follower who feels deceived saying that "Prem's techniques don't work". Many do not have the willpower to practice for long (expecting, with wishful thinking, it will work like magic in a short time), despite having promised to practice for long or for life, and then they feel restless, because only meditation can calm the mind and bring peace, and some even blame Prem, feeling "deceived" at not getting what they expected as early as they expected.

Many people, both followers and non-followers, do not know that these are not "Prem's techniques", he did not invent them, but learned them from his father, who learned them from his guru, who learned them from his, etc. These techniques, or similar, have been practiced for thousands of years. In ancient times from Krishna, to Buddha to Jesus. They are mentioned in the Baghavad gita, and Yogananda mentions bible sentences which refer to meditation. "Be still and know that I am God" and "In the enjoyment of the Lord I die everyday" can't be better descriptions of Samadhi. Yogananda and others say, and many believe, that Jesus travelled to India from 14 to 30 years old, learned meditation and taught it privately to the 12 apostles. See "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ" in Wikipedia. The techniques are mentioned also in modern times in the books of Sivananda, Vivekananda (in his book "Concentration and Meditation"), Yogananda (in his books "God talks with Arjuna", "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ" and "The Yoga of Jesus", perhaps in others), etc.

Prem Rawat has not invented anything, this was "invented" a long time ago, Prem just explains in a simple way, for all kinds of people, what Yogananda and others explained in a technical, intellectual way, different, for me also beautiful, with all the intricacies of the "spiritual technology" of yoga and meditation and sophisticated explanations which are nonetheless useless without practice, as they all said. --Pedrero (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pedrero, you need to understand that this is not the place to express your beliefs, no matter how sincere. This talk page is for discussion of changes to the Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat, and such changes need to be backed up with reliable sources. There are no such sources for the claims you make. --John Brauns (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said John. Hohohahaha (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, John, sorry, and thanks for the warning, but I do not understand why critics are accepted but not defence. What claims I make do you want sources for?--Pedrero (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All significant viewpoints that can be found in reliable sources are appropriate to include. Can you point to the reference works that include the assertions you'd like to include? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, "Will Beback", I will provide references for the connection of Prem's teachings and tecniques with old and modern yoga traditions, something that is missing in the article, but in my opinion important and not known by many people, followers and not, who know about Prem, but not about yoga. But it will take some time, please be patient. Sorry if my comments were too long, I know better now.--Pedrero (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Information about the meditation and yoga traditions would be better suited in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. Also, if you intend to go into any depth about the meditation and yoga, then it only makes sense that the four Knowledge meditation techniques be described. I don't see how one can get around doing that. Concerning Maharaji's role in DLM/EV, he has been the spiritual leader and titular head of DLM/EV since DLM's establishment in 1971. It really had nothing to do with Maharaji not being of majority age, but about the purpose of the DLM/EV's establishment, as stated in its Colorado Articles of Incorporation, in Article III, "Object and Purposes:"

To provide and operate an institution dedicated to the uplifting of ignorance by giving the Knowledge of God as revealed by the Perfect Master, Balyogeshwar Parm Hans Sat Gurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaji (known as Guru Maharaj [sic]), the purpose or purposes of said organization being exclusively spiritual, religious, charitable, educational, and scientific.

You can find these articles of incorporation if you search the Colorado Secretary of State's Business Division, looking for the 1971 Articles of Incorporation, listed under document history for Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (same corporation). Sylviecyn (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sylviecyn, you are right, I had also thought of writing it instead in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat", and I had also thought about what you say of how to mention the connection of Prem's techniques with yoga and the Bible without detailing Prem’s techniques so I can keep my promise, but, as you rightly say, that is not easy.

I could quote literally some sentences of Prem Rawat that echo things you may read in yoga books or the Bible, but of course someone could say what does that prove? And many, or perhaps most Wikipedia readers, would say that the Bible is no "reliable source", so I have given up writing anything about Prem Rawat, his techniques or his teachings, and let people think whatever they want. I will just continue translating yoga articles from the English Wikipedia for the Spanish one, that is also a pleasure for me.

I would like to add that it is true that in the beginning things were more religious-related and sect-like, as it was for thousands of years, but after Prem changed all that for the first time in known history, to make it easier for people all over the world, and as for aprox. two decades it has all been stripped of religious or cultural attachments, I do not see why everything is still described as it was 30 years ago.

I do not see what reason there is to remind in 2008 what the Divine Light Mission was or was not, since it does not exist any more for Prem Rawat nor for premies, even if it is so present in the minds of many ex-premies. Again, let people write and think whatever they want. Prem is just doing the same as Yogananda did: follow his guru’s request to go to the West and spread the inner Knowledge of the soul because the West needs it. Since I do not want to write anything in Prem's articles, perhaps I will start a new one comparing Yogananda and Prem. Or Jesus, Yogananda and Prem. Even if in the end I do not put it in Wikipedia either, it will be a pleasure. It is incredible how different are Jesus, Yogananda and Prem, aren't they? How could you ever compare them? Well, they all did the same: they came from the east and spread "something" in the west.

Thanks for your comments.--Pedrero (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pedrero. While I am full of respect for where you are coming from and understand your frustration, I don't think you have "got" Wikipedia yet. The reason the situation of 30 years ago is being highlighted is that the researchers of that time were paid by religious organisations, sociological institutes and other concerned groups to look into Prem Rawat's activities, which seemed to (perhaps did) present a threat to their worldviews. A lone teacher of apparently only four meditation techniques and founder of a rather small global charitable institute just doesn't appear on their radar, so there are very few modern sources. On Wikipedia, no one can say, "Well, this is what I know to be the truth and it should go in the article." We are not reputable sources and will just get accused of wp:soapboxing or worse. I suggest you look for scholarly sources who say what you believe to be true. There may be some more out there. Spanish sources are worth a look also. Rumiton (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. I appreciate very much your comments. I understand it is difficult for Wikipedia to keep a neutral balance since, let us be honest, nobody is neutral about almost anything, let alone ideological issues. When I first saw Prem’s biography in English a few weeks ago I found it very critical, even before I read the Spanish one. The English version is inflated about DLM times (could almost be transposed as part of the article on DLM), repeated comments about Prem’s wealth, (few know that Krishna was guru and king, as is usual in Satya Yugas). If he took his family to a slum to prove his truthfulness critics would find something else, as some look at what he says, and some at what he does, and we see what we want to see. So he was the "leader of the DLM sect or cult" until his mother "dismissed him" as leader. Who was the DLM leader then? Also repeated references to his divinity, though he never claimed to be God, but the opposite is true, Prem says it is wrong to say "we are God" but right to say that "God is within each of us", so it seems some want him to be the only exception. I love Wikipedia, and find it is a serious and accurate source of information and not a loudspeaker of any ideology, but, sorry to say, this article seems an unfortunate exception. As a follower I can't be more partial, true, but that does not make me automatically wrong. It is not so important, fortunately Wikipedia is not only in English and articles are not just literal translations, wich is logical, better so, not so boring. After all the article echoes what mainstream media said in the seventies about Prem, and forty years later we have learned something more about mainstream media. It is good we have Internet and Wikipedia, and I hope they will never become too "mainstream".

Later on I have been reading, in other websites, people saying Wikipedia is biased in favour of Prem. It is all funny. It seems it can hardly be good enough to satisfy premies nor bad enough to satisfy critics, specially ex-premies, as many of them were truth seekers until they found Prem, then it often took them years to discover that Prem was not a true master or guru, (even though some were close to him), and after that, instead of going somewhere else to find the true one, they remained Prem’s “followers” for life, just to criticize his early DLM times, even decades afterwards.

The only solution would be to have two articles, one by critics and one by premies, and a third one for debates, which could be fascinating, what about a Wikipedia Forum? I don’t want to write too long again. Thanks Rumiton, I will write something more for you (as fellow translator rather than premie) in your personal Wikipedia page, including some funny things.--Pedrero (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedrero, articles about contentious topics often end up in a middle ground which proponents think is too critical and opponents think is too sympathetic. However splitting this article would not be a solution. That was done several years ago and it didn't turn out well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposed sub-section has a number of weaknesses. The primary weakness is that the references for Maharaji being a cult leader comprises two statements in newspaper articles that he is, but without any discussion of those claims, in any form. Indeed, the articles have nothing to do with "cult leadership". Clearly, there are no grounds for a discussion of whether Maharaji is a cult leader when two newspaper articles have headlined this in passing. One of the reasons Wikipedia is not accepted as a source with any authority is because many of the claims made in many of of its topics are based on inadequate evidence and argument. To make a legitimate claim to authenticity, some evidence and argument must be presented. There are numerous policies relating to this; all have been mentioned in this context before, over many years. Errol V (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct NPOV-wise to exclude information from Wikipedia's main namespace based on the fact that this information is available from a few newspaper headlines, and BTW also from a Zondervan publication.

Maybe less than a separate subsection should be devoted to this, but not being discussed at all makes that the article doesn't comply to the fairly important NPOV policy as far as I can tell. There are other POV issues with the article I'd be prepared to discuss, but maybe this one is a good one to start with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read your comments a couple of times, Francis, but I am at a loss to decipher them. Please recast. Errol V (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Was my reference to WP:NPOV unclear? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I did better than Errol, I read what you wrote 5 times. To paraphrase: "To achieve a neutral article we have to include all significant viewpoints, including the perhaps minority claim that Prem Rawat was/is a cult leader. Even if this view only comes from a few newspaper headlines, we still need to cover it." Have I understood you correctly? Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that, apart from the mentioned newspaper headlines, there's also a Zondervan publication, and apparently also a Tyndale House publication. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I might add that those are just the sources which use the exact phrase "cult leader". There are many, many more that call the DLM a "cult" and Prem Rawat its "leader" or "head", but don't use the words right next to each other. Clearly, the assertion that Prem Rawat was a cult leader is a significant point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even an encyclopedia doesn't contain every piece of detritus that has been printed in a newspaper. That's one point. The second is that assertions are not fact. They are assertions and as such have not been tested against evidence. Neither articles mentioned as references discusses the relationship between Rawat and cults. All they do is mention in a headline that Rawat is a cult leader. I understand that many people in this discussion have an agenda. That's always been the case. But Wikipedia will never become an authoritative source until such time as its material meets the policies such as verifiability, and others, that is the basis for any useful work. So, the material that appears in a Wiki entry must have been tested; that is the method for determining accuracy. That a point of view is asserted is not a rigorous method of determining anything. A "viewpoint" is nothing. It does not help anybody come to any understanding. History is littered with untested assertions about various things and various people, and that does not make for happy reading.

Some quotes from "Policy Verifiability": "The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article." The two newspaper articles quoted do not support the information. They simply state it, without any substantive evidence. Jimmy Wales wrote: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." In this case, the random speculation is not on the part of the writer of the article, but on the part of the newspaper article writer. However, that random speculation should not be the source of the claim, nor does it legitimate the claim of the article. Errol V (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Those statements don't reflect with the research on this topic. The DLM was widely characterized as a "cult" or "sect" and Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaj Ji was universally acknowledged as its leader. Now I'm not saying that the text proposed above is right for the article. But this topic is not just a matter of "detritus that has been printed in a newspaper". See below for some related sources. As for viewpoints, they are the foundation of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia's unique neutral point of view policy requires that we include all significant viewpoints, and present them neutrally with appropriate weight. You may also be unaware of the verifiability policy. It says, essentially that assertions must be verifiable, not necessarily true. One way of stating the task of Wikipedia editors is "summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view". So if we have ten sources that say X, and 3 sources that say Y, we report both without indicating which one is correct. Also, saying that many editors have agendas doesn't help the discussion. It implies that some editors are free from agendas. Can anyone here certify that they don't care about the topic one way or the other? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is disputable that Prem Rawat was the primary focus of all those people, and can loosely be called their leader. Some may have seen the DLM as a cult, but to then call him a "cult leader" is a form of synthesis that is going too far. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something. I just did a word search of the article and couldn't find the words "cult leader" in the text nor in the footnotes and resources sections. Is it being proposed that this article be purged of all sources that use the word cult? That would included the titles of newspaper/magazine articles and published books (some by scholars of NRMs) which are all reliable sources. Btw, adherents of Prem Rawat freely refer to him as their "Master," currently, therefore I don't understand how that is "loosely" referring to him as their leader. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my book, a master is a person who has mastered something and therefore qualifies as a teacher for people who desire to master the same field. You would not follow a master home, unless he invites you to. A leader is something different, although superficially there are similarities. A leader is not necessarily a teacher. From him you might learn to lead, but whom would you lead? You can install or opt out a leader, but not a master. People who don’t wish to learn from a master do not lessen his mastership. So, “master” signifies Rawat more precisely than “leader”. And “cult” is merely a fighting word and should be used with appropriate distance in an encyclopedia, no need to push it.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments based on semantics don't affect our editing, or shouldn't It doesn't matter whether we think that the best title for Rawat/GMJ is "lord", "master", "leader", "guru", etc. What matters is what reliable sources say. And all of those descriptions have been used for the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The English and the Spanish version of the article on Prem Rawat are very different. I like the Spanish version much more. But I admit that I can't be more biased, because I am Spanish. Without references, in the English version there are 4,553 words - in Spanish 2,644 w - German 2,010 w - Danish 1,451 w - French 487 w.--Pedrero (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant sources

• Leader
• MAHARAJ JI, GURU Dec. 10, 1957- Indian spiritual leader Moritz 1974
• In talking about their recent trip west they tell some delightful tales of the 14-year-old Indian leader talking to them and guiding them one minute and the next speeding around in an auto, or pushing one of his mahatmas into a swimming pool or gorging himself on one of his delights, Baskin and Bobbins ice cream. Magee, Doug, "Bennington's Divine Light Mission: Don't judge the book by the cover" Bennington Banner, Tuesday, August 8, 1972—3
• In town to accept a testimonial resolution, Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old Indian religious leader, was struck with a shaving-cream pie hurled by a bearded illwisher. TIME Aug. 20, 1973 [1]
• The crowd, including some 3,000 young Americans and other foreigners, sang "The Lord of the Universe Has Come to Us," as they waited for the plane carrying their leader to arrive from New York. "Devotees Hail Guru In India" NEW DELHI, UPI Nevada State Journal Nov. 8, 1972, p.13
• Probably dozens of other newspaper mentions.
• The Divine Light Mission used to be one of the most sensational guru movements, for it was headed by the child guru Maharaj Ji, who claims to be "The Lord of the Universe." Aagaard, Johannes, "Who Is Who In Guruism?" tirsdag, 30 november 1999 01:00
• This analysis examines the case of Divine Light Mission, a 1970's New Religious Movement whose leader and doctrine came from India.
• Friedman recounts, with healthy skepticism, the young guru's history — how at his father's funeral Maharaj Ji proclaimed himself leader of the movement which now claims upwards of 3 million followers in India. Rose, Stephen C., "The Guru on Fourteenth Street", the christian CENTURY' January 19, 1972. p.68
• This study examines one such religious leader, Guru Maharaj Ji of the Divine Light Mission....Among the most common titles given to the leader of the Divine Light Mission are those of guru, satguru, and Perfect Master...The spiritual leader of the D.L.M. is an ambivalent figure and so is the world view of the devotees. Saliba 1980
• This leader of some five million devotees is really a child and a lover of machine-age toys: cars, airplanes, stereos, rock band equipment, even computers, which fascinate him. Messer 1974
• The movement suffered setbacks when Millennium 1973 at the Astrodome failed to attract the crowds expected and when the young leader and his mother feuded, but it appears to have regained momentum in the last two years. Bruce Campbell, SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, p.369
• The leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM), the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970s. Hunt 2003
• Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement's leader. Derks & van der Lans 1983
• Its recently dethroned leader, Balyogeshwar alias Guru Maharaj Ji, was claimed to be "the brightest event in the history of the planet" by Rennie Davis, a leading American revolutionary of the sixties, who later became a devotee of Guru Maharaj Ji... Balyogeshwar became the leader of the sect after his father's death on July 19, 1966 Mangalwadi 1987

Redirect for discussion

Individuals involved in this article may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_1#The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation_.E2.86.92_Prem_Rawat. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates

We put a lot of work into improving the article under Steve's mediation, but some of the material never made it here. I've posted a new intro that is an improvement over the existing one, and added the Lifestyle section that we drafted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Performed some tweaks. Note that the intro has two {{fact}} templates now, which I think should be remedied ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those. I have a question about the first cite request. It follows this sentence:

• When he died in 1966, Rawat was proclaimed "satguru" or "Perfect Master",[7] and succeeded his father as the spiritual leader of five million followers in India.'

I presume the request covers the second clause. That clause contains four facts: succession, spiritual leadership, 5 million followers, and India. Can we say which of those facts needs an explicit reference? (I assume we can take the last as covered in other sources). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Five million may be an underestimation, see Prem Rawat#Following (I can't remember ever having seen estimates of number of DLM followers around the time Hans Ji died and Rawat became the new spiritual leader of the movement). Anyway, I suppose a ref would be obtainable from the previous mediation discussion: when I added the "fact" tag there was "... five million followers in India.[60]" (my bolding). I didn't follow that discussion very closely at the time, so I suppose someone might still remember what "[60]" stood for originally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a source for five million in 1972 or 1973. I've got a newspaper source for 3 million from 1971 - "... he claims to have three million followers around the world..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for seeking consensus, Will. Basically, you have added one large section about which there is no consensus, and replaced the lead on the same basis. Why? Care to explain the rationale for such an unilateral move? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So what does a good Wikipedian do? From past experience, if this badly written, poorly phrased and malevolently chosen stuff is allowed to remain, it will soon be claimed it is there by "consensus." Advice, anyone? Rumiton (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both added sections are improvements to the article. The old lead had a lot of problems and the lifestyle issues weren't handled fully. If there are specific problems with the text please identify them and we can fix them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are things about Wikipedia that you are consistently not getting. No one editor can say "Both added sections are improvements." It is up to all involved editors to agree about it. That is called consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind all involved that consensus should result in an article that perhaps none of us would have written, but which we all can live with. There is no way of subverting this process. I have reverted the article to the version immediately before these large, unconsensed changes were made. Let's discuss any proposed changes. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not a policy reason to delete neutral, sourced material. What specific problem do you have that you reverted those contributions to the article? The intro that you reverted to is not better, in my opinion. Are you arguing that it is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree Rumiton. Will BeBack is breaking all the rules.Momento (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which rules? And why was this neutral, sourced information removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless specific policy reasons for the deletion of this material are provided (more than "I don't like it") I'll restore it. To quote another editor, "BLPs do not preclude the inclusion of well sourced material. The only interpretation possible is that some editors consider that material to be negative to the subject of the article, but that, I am afraid, is not how Wikipedia articles are developed." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"To quote another editor"? What kind of policy statement is that? I suggest you read and take seriously WP:BLP. The changes you inserted were neither improving nor neutral. In fact, you have deleted genuinely neutral and reputable sources because they conflicted with your point of view. You took out informative statements on the Knowledge Prem Rawat teaches. You took out the very significant fact that his teachings evolved in the west away from their Hindu origins, and you removed mention of his founding of the TPRF, for reasons I can only speculate on. You expanded Mishler's claims to unnecessary and repetitive length and removed the context from the pie attack. You want to say it happened "at one point" and not that it happened at a public meeting arranged by Detroit authorities to present Prem Rawat with a municipal award. Your word choice, in the context you have created, implies that "pieing" is a harmless example of lese-majesty. In fact it is a criminal assault, both physical and emotional, and people have been jailed for it. In "Lifestyle" you have deleted mention that Prem Rawat's father was considered a "Satguru" by great numbers of Indian followers, and now introduce him only as "wealthy high caste." Then there is the childish-sounding "extremely affluent." Affluent means "abounding in riches." (OED) The adverb is an unnecessary reinforcement, clearly made in case someone didn't get the point you were making. You entice the reader with hanging implications of tax fraud (possibly tax-exempt auto purchases) but nowhere report that he has never been found guilty of any misbehaviour. You want to say "critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers" which implies that donations made to him in the early days were somehow kept secret. You have repeated unattributed hearsay: "...a follower told a reporter." Trivially, you have changed the correct word "aircraft" to the incorrect "aircrafts." Rumiton (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I take BLP as seriously as any other editor here. But BLP doesn't mean that sourced, neutral information may be removed for no reason. Addressing the "lifestyle" section isssues: The father is already described as a guru in the "Childhood" section. If you think "extremely" is redundant that's a minor issue. I don't think there's an implication of fraud if we don't say that there was fraud. We can say that there were investigated but never charged. I don't see how there's an implication that donations were kept secret. Thanks for pointing out the error with "aircrafts". I'll restore the section and address those issues.

Regarding the intro, the founding of TPRF should be mentioned in the chronological order, in the "2000s" section. I don't see where anything about the pieing was mentioned. There are questions about whether the teachings had a Hindu origin. They generally described as being derived from Sant Mat. Is there a source for the "Hindu origins"? As for the rest, this is an intro - it should be short and reflect the overall article. The current intro that you restored doesn't do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in order to mitigate the impression of a blatant lack of neutrality in the "lifestyle"-section it might be added, that Rawat never had income through his teachings or through the initiation into the techniques, all of which were and are free. So donations really are donations. And there are other sources of income. Hm? And that Rawat has been travelling the by large bigger part of his lifetime, which is certainly more relevant for his lifestyle than the brand of car he drives and less merely envy-eliciting. Could that be properly sourced?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that say the teachings are free, and there are also sources that mention demands for money. I know that whole matter of whether he loves of donations or off of investment income was discussed previously. I'll see if I can find that thread and if any sources were listed. As for travelling most of his life, I don't know where we'd find a source for that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find that old thread on income. Maybe someone else who was involved in the discuss can remember better when it occurred. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the vases again ... please. :-) Jayen466 21:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember we had versions of the lifestyle section that were at least closer to getting consensus. Jayen466 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The vases incident is sourced, but in the interest of accommodation I've removed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps some editors are confusing the concept and notion of "biased" with "factual," not to mention "well-sourced," and "accurate." The lede version that Will placed into the article much more accurately depicts the history of Rawat's early life, it's more factual, and the information is well-sourced. The lede version that has been reverted is a whitewash of Rawat's true biography. In short, it's nothing more than revisionism, that is biased in favor of how Rawat is being promoted today The fact is that Prem Rawat became a guru at the age of eight, not a "speaker on the subject of inner peace." To state his beginnings otherwise is a blatantly biased whitewash of the facts. The lede version worked upon when we were in mediation with Steve Crossin is the best version and the one that should be used. I would support reinserting that version. Thanks!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see anyone actually defending the old lede. I'm going to restore it, add a mentions of the Glastonbury and the the appropriate chronological sections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind=ego

• (premies use "mind" and "ego" interchangeably) [2]

This was added and cited to Downton's Sacred Journeys. Which page? I'm having trouble locating it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)