Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 9 August 2010

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Prem Rawat (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat

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

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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 25 days

Untitled

• 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
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• 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

Archive index 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) April 2009 April 2009 – June 2009 – May 2010 (Archive 43) (Archive 44)

McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement

Will, I see you reinstated that ref which was inserted without discussion. I deleted it because I could see no connection between the Hindu Nationalist Movement and Prem Rawat. The source obviously refers to his brother. Do you know otherwise? Rumiton (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton: Did you read the pages before rejecting them, or were you judging by the book title? BTW, I inserted the suggestion in a section specifically discussing Prem's brother, Satpal. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where can I easily read those pages? You said, "McKean mentions Guru Maharaj Ji briefly..." and that did not seem enough to warrant inclusion here. Are you going to post some excerpts? Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Go here and search for "Guru Maharaj Ji" .Momento (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did that, and NOW I have a problem. "Guru Maharaj Ji" is a generic term of respect in India, not an individual name. The references to Guru Maharaj Ji that I just found are all about Satpal. Thank you for looking for interesting new sources, but this one is guaranteed to create confusion. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now that you are aware of the Organization, see what INFORM has to report. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know otherwise. It contains information in the subject and his family. And it was discussed above.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed the "discussion" which took place almost simultaneously with its insertion. The text apparently "...mentions Guru Maharaj Ji briefly." Does this make it a useful addition? Rumiton (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to it. Could you please explain?   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am just asking, "Does this source add enough to the reader's understanding of the subject to make it worthy of listing?" It seems peripheral, at best. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the list of references would certainly save on printing costs. If we were printing this. ;) As it is, it's harmless. Let's see what Omni is going to propose from it. If it's not being used in a while we can delete it. It doesn't cause any problems in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  12:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with waiting, but if it turns out to add nothing useful it should go. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Sources for Prem Rawat Biography

Perhaps editors would like to contribute to this list of unconsulted or under-consulted reputable sources. To begin with, some editors may be interested in the treatment given in the 5-page article on "Maharaji //Elan Vital // The Prem Rawat Foundation" by the academically-sponsored site INFORM, www.inform.ac (based at the London School of Economics).

Their reports must be requested by email or snail mail. In the item mentioned above, there is a basically fair presentation of Rawat's life, with emphasis on the latter half. Also included is a section of Controversies dealing mainly with the early DLM period. If editors would like a quote I can offer it, but the whole document should also be consulted.

More suggestions later. Over to you. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. Something we've found helpful to all editors is to post excerpts of significant sources on one of the subpages of this talk page. (See the list at the top of the page, just below the banners). If you have it in hand, perhaps you could add a few relevant quotations. BTW, we now have an article on INFORM, if anyone's curious about it.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I never heard of this organisation before, but it sounds useful. Rumiton (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an English organisation. I am not English. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope other editors have taken note of this revealing comment. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ombudswiki, please realize that this page has a very long and tiresome history of personal attacks and hostility, and everybody enjoys periods of relative peace, like the one right now. Efforts to agitate one side against the other may be felt as disruptive and not helpful.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ombudswiki, could I ask you to you mail me a copy of the report? (If so, I'll drop you a mail you can reply to.) --JN466 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To Will and Jayen and others:

Since INFORM prefers to deal with individual inquiries, I have written to them to ask for permission before posting a brief selection of items from the article they sent to me by email. It is not offered on their site, to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I suggest you contact them directly by email. I will post the selection if they give permission. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Still no reply from INFORM. Have any of you written to them for a copy? Ombudswiki (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I dropped them a mail, nada so far. --JN466 22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I've had a reply now. --JN466 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Following the recent suggestion of Will Beback, I have posted a selection of points from the INFORM Report on Prem Rawat as a new section at the end of the following review. Other bibliographical suggestions could be added here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat/GA_Review_March_07 Ombudswiki (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a thread at RSN on whether we can use the report as a source; while INFORM is reputable, the report is not really published, but only available upon request. It is also unsigned, and I note some parts are copied from Misplaced Pages, which would raise a WP:CIRCULAR concern. Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Information_available_on_demand. --JN466 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

11 days later: this link is broken because the discussion has been relegated to Archive 70. Can we not therefore assume that the INFORM Report may now be used by editors? Ombudswiki (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned. It was full of errors.Momento (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A beginning could be made by considering this statement by INFORM:

Controversies

"There have been many criticisms levelled at Prem Rawat particularly during the time of the Divine Light Mission, but it must be noted that the majority of these criticisms date from the 1970s and early 1980s. Former members are critical that in the early days of the movement, the Maharaji was presented as an incarnation of God and made statements to his followers to this effect. They allege that the young Maharaji encouraged complete surrender to him ..." Ombudswiki (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A beginning might better be made by looking at the errors in the piece. They claimed he was also known as the "Maharishi" and made other mistakes that no one with even the most cursory knowledge of the subject would make. This is a disappointingly worthless source. (They also appear to ignore requests for copies...they have ignored two of mine.) Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to edit the lead

Can we continue with this? The current lead says -

"In 1974, at age sixteen, he married a Westerner, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance".

It is wrong in several respects. It doesn't include the important info that he "took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". It suggests the marriage split the movement but the movement wasn't split until over a year later when a court case took place in India. It doesn't include the info that his "growing independence" was one of the causes. It doesn't include the info that his "Mother disowned him". It doesn't include the fact that his mother appointed his brother as head of DLM India. And it contains the phrase "took a more active role in its guidance" which isn't supported by the sources given (and is out of chronology according to Downton and the article). The proposal so far is to replace it with this -

"In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM".Momento (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient. We haven't stopped discussing this.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains why I wrote "so far" in my post.Momento (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include "May" in the lead, it's a summary. If they want to know more detail, it's in the article, but that's a minor point. I'm pretty sure I've seen sources (more than one) for Rawat taking a more active role, so if there's really some question about whether or not he did (which seems obvious to me), I'd like a little time to go through all my materials again and locate those sources. I'm not crazy about this sentence "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him", perhaps that could be changed to "His marriage, seen as another sign of his growing independence, prompted his mother to disown him", and are we really happy with "disowned"? -- Maelefique 15:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I added May to tie it to the wedding date and also to make the sentence a little less staccato. Rawat definitely started taking "a more active role in its guidance" but according to the article that occurred before his marriage, as per "When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable". In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India". As I posted above, the common words used to describe the split were - 2 x "removed" him, 5 x "renounced" him and 3 x "disowned" him. One of the "renounced" is coupled with "responsibility for". I suggest we go with "disowned" because it is easier to understand than "renounced" which I think is mentioned several times as a result of sloppy copying by newspapers". Other phrases were "dismissed him as leader", "replaced him". The split did not occur until late 1975, more than a year after the marriage, so it was one of the causes but not THE cause.Momento (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One interesting thing that I noticed while reviewing news coverage of the wedding was that every source that I could find but one (Price, which was written well after the split) indicated that the reason that he did not have parental consent was because his mother was not reachable (Associated Press.) Comments? Ronk01 talk, 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, she was in India. Rawat had already given his brother permission to marry a westerner and he knew his mother would never allow him to marry a westerner. It wasn't until a year after his wedding that the split became public and comments were made about the marriage by his mother and spokespeople.Momento (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rawat had given his (elder) brother permission to marry? Did you mean to write that? Rumiton (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. He gave Raja Ji permission to marry Claudia. Raja Ji was over 18 and didn't need his permission legally but considered Rawat the head of the family.Momento (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Source?   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We've spent years discussing this already. Can't we ever settle it? Nothing has changed about this period; there's no new scholarship. We've spent long enough discussing this without finding text that has a fresh consensus or is an obvious improvement. Is this really the most pressing issue in all of Misplaced Pages? Let's leave well enough alone.   Will Beback  talk  11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to do other things Will. But as is clear from my proposal above, there are a problems with the current version that are solved with my proposal. I'm happy to work with Ronk01, Maelefique and Rumiton to make it better.Momento (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to make the fewest changes to this already heavily discussed article. Most text here is the result of hard-won consensus, and it is disrespectful to the efforts that have gone into this article to make sweeping changes. To address your concerns, I've proposed:

• In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary without his mother's permission, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance.

this is the intro - we don't need to and shouldn't try to cover every detail. There are sufficient sources to show that Rawat took a greater role in the guidance of the DLM as he grew older.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Will here, the sources back up his proposal. Ronk01 talk, 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary the sources directly contradict Will's proposal that after the marriage - "Prem Rawat ... took a more active role in its guidance". Melton, the source cited, clearly states that "In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation.." that's six months before he married. Likewise the article itself cites Downton, Geaves and Melton for the following "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable". In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India.". So six months before Will claims the "marriage" divided the family and lead Rawat to take "a more active role in its guidance" Rawat had already "encroached on his mother's territory", "taken control of DLM US", taken a more active part in guiding the movement and his mother and brother had "returned to India". As for "it is disrespectful to the efforts that have gone into this article to make sweeping changes", these aren't "sweeping changes" and how about a bit of respect for the subject of this BLP who has the right to have his story told accurately and according to the sources. And let's not forget that Will's proposal leaves out the important fact that "Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission" and "Mata ji appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader"!! Let's get serious, Will's proposal is contradicted by the sources he cites and leaves out crucial info that is well sourced, described in detail in the article and major incidents in Rawat's story.Momento (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text doesn't set an exact chronology or causation. The need for legal permission to marry seems fairly minor - the whole intro is now only about 260 words long, and it doens't seem like one of the most important issues in his life. What happened in India after the split is less important, but if we're going to give reasons for the split then we need to give all POVs of it. According to Mata Ji, she disowned him for acting like a playboy, not for marrying without permission.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear what others think. Please read the above arguments and decide which proposal is the most accurate, closest to the sources cited, chronologically correct and provides the most important info about the happenings of 1974-75 -

Proposal A - "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM".

Proposal B - "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary without his mother's permission, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance".Momento (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal C - "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary. The marriage, and his growing independence, divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat took control of the DLM outside of India, while his mother and eldest brother ran the Indian movement." That avoids having to go into too much detail of the complicated reasons for the split.   Will Beback  talk 

Regrettably this new proposal doesn't work because it doesn't refer to "his mother disowning him" and "appointing his eldest brother as head of DLM India". It makes it seems as if Rawat took control of DLM in the west whilst his mother and brother ran the same movement in India. In addition where are the sources for "Rawat taking control of the DLM outside India" after his marriage? And it still doesn't refer to his legal action to get married which is far more important factually and historically than his wife was"his 24-year-old American secretary".Momento (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It also doesn't include that his mother called him a playboy and accused him of using alcohol. It doesn't include the 1970 "peace bomb" speech. It doesn't include the Millennium '73 festival. It doesn't include the beating of the reporter. It doesn't include his speech to the Almond Festival in a little town in Italy. It doesn't include lots of things. We can't include everything in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  05:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All proposals hide the fact that Prem has a significant following in India, too. Shouldn't that be mentioned in this context?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we mention that in the article. Source?   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's obviously not mentioned yet, so I understand it can't be in the lede, and it is a shortcoming of the article. I think it is important though, because it indicates there has not simply been a split, but rather a reform, like Christianity out of Judaism. As for sources, there must be primary sources that say things like 500.000 people coming to a single event in India and such. Would that do? I suppose Geaves might mention the Raj Vidya Kender somewhere, perhaps some editor remembers.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please let's deal with one thing at a time. And that is which proposal A B or C.Momento (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I like A best, as it refers to disowning Prem.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with A as it seems to equate the body of his students with the organisation (DLM.) How about a synthesis? "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. His mother and eldest brother ran the Indian movement." Rumiton 114.77.242.145 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Rumiton, his sentence makes more sense. Ronk01 talk, 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

O.k., but I think the disownment should be mentioned somewhere. It is important, because it is an information on the origin of his prosperity.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If everyone wants " took a more active role in its guidance", it has to go before his marriage because that's what the sources say - ""When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement". And I agree with Rainer "disowning" is important and so is "She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India", they didn't just run it. And Rumiton is right, "movement" is more accurate than "DLM" for what "Rawat retained". Which brings us to the sentence that follows about Rawat becoming an "Amercian citizen". This is unimportant to his notability and his movement. Dropping it will allow us to go straight to "abandoned the Indian aspects" which follows on nicely. So how about "When Rawat turned sixteen he became more active in guiding the movement and in May 1974 he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." Which brings us smothly to "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)." and is eleven words shorter than the current lead. Momento (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the pro-Rawat editors seem to want to take 1974-1975 as the jumping off point to claim that Rawat "removed Indian aspects of his teachings," when in fact that is inaccurate and incorrect. It wasn't until at least 1983 in the U.S. when the ashrams were closed that Indian aspects could be said to be removed. Therefore, I strongly object to using this slant. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, characterising the editors trying to improve this article as "pro-Rawat editors" "using a slant" that is "inaccurate and incorrect" isn't helpful. Particularly since you are wrong. The proposal does not "take 1974-1975 as the jumping off point to claim that Rawat "removed Indian aspects of his teachings". The sentence concerned sits between "the disowning" which was in 1975 and "the early 1980s" and clearly says "began removing". And here is material in the article that supports that claim - in 1975 "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". "In January 1976 Rawat encouraged them to leave the ashrams and discard Indian customs and terminology". "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". "The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master". Having only one sentence to cover the period between 1975 and 1980s is probably not enough and something should be said about Rawat continuing to teach and travel but clearly in this period Rawat went from "Indian" to "non-Indian" in his teachings.Momento (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede is fine the way it is and no changes are necessary or required. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Momento's proposal from July 16th, "When Rawat turned sixteen..."? If there are no substantial objections, it could be adopted.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure, we could look at it again. Ronk01 talk, 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is ""When Rawat turned sixteen he became more active in guiding the movement and in May 1974 he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." I think the sentence about Rawat becoming an "Amercian citizen" is unimportant to his notability and his movement and dropping it entirely or putting it after this info will make a better lead.Momento (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please vote yes or no to the above, adding comments as needed.

Yes but it should be the Indian DLM. I think this covers the main points quite OK. Rumiton. (I hope to be back tomorrow on a workable computer.) 114.77.242.51 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconsidering Ronk01 talk, 02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• No - it assumes one version of events (that the split was due to the marriage) and does not include other views (that he split was due to the subject's non-spiritual behavior). Either both views should be included or neither.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't assume "the split was due to the marriage" which would be incorrect. It says "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him". The split had already occurred according to the article which is one of the reasons to remove that claim from the lead, which my proposal does. The claims of being a "playboy" etc didn't surface until April 1975 which, according to Downton, happened when Mata Ji and BBJ "learned of Maharaj Ji's plan to return there (India) for a visit, they mounted a campaign to defame him and interfere with his expected arrival".Momento (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we excluding that view?   Will Beback  talk 

Now that I think about it, why aren't we including the playboy material? Is it a concision issue? Ronk01 talk, 04:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The main reason it isn't in the lead is that we can't put everything in the lead and the name calling isn't a major issue. If we did include it we would also have to include why she said it. Momento (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but the reasons should already be outlined in the article. Ronk01 talk, 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's not enough room for both POVs then let's leave both out. I don't buy the argument that there's only enough room for one POV.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly room in the article to include Downton's "When Mata Ji and Sat Pal learned of Maharaj Ji's plan to return to India, they mounted a campaign to defame him and interfere with his expected arrival". But the lead should only represent the major points of the article and that is "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM" which is supported by numerous sources. Let's just make the lead an accurate summary of the major points of the existing article. Once we do that we can, if anybody is interested, see about the article. Although, since we've all agreed, the emancipation material is contradicted by RS, I have removed it.Momento (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro should include all POVs, just like the article should. If we can't include both differing views of the feud, then we should avoid getting into the reasons in the intro and leave that issue for the body of the article where we can spend as much room as necessary. Downton isn't the only source. We're not discussing emancipation here, so let's leave that to another thread.   Will Beback  talk  05:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There aren't differing view points. The article says that Rawat started showing his independence before the marriage, the marriage exacerbated the split and a year after the marriage MataJI made her claims. That's what the article say and that's what my proposal says.Let's hear what others say.Momento (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think, the fairly NPOV "growing independence" covers somehow the rather POV "playboy"-bit well enough for the lede. The article body can be more explicit.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me. Something like

• After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American without his mother's permission. She disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India. He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable.

That covers the points Momento wants without the unnecessary speculation.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"That covers the points Momento wants"? Have you being looking at your own secret Misplaced Pages? Where's "he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission"? How about "After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he took legal action in order to marry an American without his mother's permission. She later disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. Momento (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The legal action involved in getting married took 15 minutes. The multiple suits between the Rawat brothers took months and resulted in Prem Rawat jumping bail. I don't understand why you think one is so much more important than the other.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Because one is mentioned in the article and the other isn't.Momento (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we should fix that rather than further distorting the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Constantly bringing up irrelevant issues is a waste of everyone's time. The fact that Rawat "took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission" is in the article, well sourced and not a distortion. Unless there are any objections based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices I will insert the last proposal - "After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he took legal action in order to marry an American without his mother's permission. She later disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable."Momento (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the one pushing this. If you're not willing to discuss it then let's drop the proposed change. There is no need to place this minor detail in the intro, while excluding more important legal cases involving the subject. Another example would be the jewelry smuggling issue. That is in the article and is well-covered in the sources. Let's add them both. We also don't include the Detroit beating and the Millennium '73 festival. As for your proposed text, there isn't a consensus for it so I don't think you should insert it unilaterally. If you leave out the "legal action" part then I wouldn't object, but it's undue weight on a minor detail considering all of the more important events which we omit.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here, it's either all or nothing. Ronk01 talk, 23:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If we leave out the "legal action", it ceases to be "without his mother's permission" and becomes "against his mother's wishes". So we're going to have to re-jig the proposal so that it reads right. So "When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable."Momento (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We have many sources that say it was without her permission. I don't think we have as many good sources that say it was against her wishes. Why are you making this new proposal?   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you make a new proposal? The whole point of the legal case was to marry "without his mother's permission". If the legal is out, then what is the most accurate description? Derks & Lands "Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage"; Galanter - "This he did against his mother's wishes", Downton "she became upset because she had not been asked to approve"; Rudin & Rudin - "Guru's mother was so upset over the marriage"; Partridge "his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage". Melton "against his mother’s wishes"; Stoner & Parke "Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage"; Collier "(the marriage) but for Mata and BB, Maharaj Ji had committed an act of war. Sitting in India, they planned a full-scale campaign against their youngest kin". I think there are enough to support he married "against his mother's wishes".Momento (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So Derks & Lands, Downton, Stoner & Parker all talk about the lack of permission. Rudin & Rudin don't make it clear if her disapproval came before or after the marriage. Collier is a source that we've traditionally avoided for use on 3rd parties. So that leaves just Galanter and Melton, fewer sources than simply say it was without her permission or approval.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong three times. Derks and Lans is clear, Mata Ji "did not approve of his marriage". They did not say "approve his marriage". Downton also, he says Mata Ji was upset because she "was not asked to approve", which means her permission was not sought, so giving or not giving is irrelevant. And likewise with Stone & Parker "didn't approve of the marriage. So this proposal is objection free "When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." Of course, my previous proposal was more accurate, includes the important "took legal action" and focuses on the subject of this BLP rather than his mother.Momento (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "objection free". I object to it. "Without permission" or "without approval" is closer to the sources.   Will Beback  talk 

Since the article and sources clearly say "against her wishes" and "lack of respect for her wishes", you're argument makes no sense. I'm putting it in.Momento (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for review of critical content

There has been a lot of talk about reinstating criticism in to the article, before we do this however, we need to determine how much valid criticism is already in the article, and review sources for more material. Comments? Ronk01 talk, 02:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In this connection, please consider my latest note and reference in the "Additional Sources" section above. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"how much" is in approximately the same proportions as is covered in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you read the available sources, that is simply not true. Ronk01 talk, 05:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They were saying that there wasn't enough information on criticisms of Rawat to include any more in the article, clearly not true. Ronk01 talk, 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Next sentence

The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Before we move on to the 1980s, we haven't finished with the 1970s yet. There is no mention of the smuggling incident, the Detroit beating, or Millennium '73.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have to ask why the failed Millennium '73 is not mentioned. Ronk01 talk, 01:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it wasn't organised by Rawat.Momento (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But it did heavily involve him, did it not? Ronk01 talk, 02:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a usable criteria. Rawat didn't tell his mother to go to India, yet we include her departure. In other biographies, Richie Havens did not organize the Woodstock Festival, yet we include it in his bio. In this case, the Millennium '73 festival was the subject's most notable event and an important turning point in his life.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets deal with one issue at a time. And then you guys make a proposal and I'll comment on it.Momento (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's deal with one issue at a time. Last time I looked we were dealing with the 1970s. Let's finish with that era before moving on to the next.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the last time you looked, there were no proposals about the 70s and I had made a proposal to summarise the "1983-2000s" section.Momento (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You made the last several proposals. Is anyone else allowed to make one?   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can make a proposal but let's have one at a time.Momento (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then let's have the next proposal be our summary of the 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Millennium, and other '70s material

We now have about 60 words in the intro for material that takes up about 210 words in the text. If we followed that ratio for the entire article, the intro would need to be about 1000 words instead of its current 280. That would be quite long, but it's not impossible.

The material in the "1970-1973" section is now almost unmentioned in the intro. It has about 1350 words. If we follow the ratio set by the last revision, we should devote about 385 words to that period. Any complaints or comments so far?   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that the 70-73 is underrepresented in the lead. It's that the 70-73 is bloated at 1265. It could easily lose 400 words. For example this section could well do without the material in bold without compromising the truth - "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash, jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared. Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts. The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas were investigated by the Indian government. In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country. Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology.Momento (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That material has been discussed extensively in the past. We're discussing the intro now. Since I don't see any objection to following the same ration, I'll draft a 385-word proposal to cover the existing material in the "1970-1973" section.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed everything many times. So I'll start paring down the "70-73" section. I imagine I can get it down to about 800 words as per the above example. So if you want to follow a ratio, I'd aim for about 70 words.Momento (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't delete anything without seeking consensus first. The proposal here is to alter the introduction.   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's not point in you working to a ratio if the section is full of puff. I mean the smuggling material is a joke. The only connection to Rawat was that he may have been on the same plane.Momento (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, this could easily be the most blatant example of attempted whitewashing I have ever seen, please do not remove relevant sourced, discussed material without consensus. Ronk01 talk, 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, you need to be extremely careful. Your suggestion that "this could easily be the most blatant example of attempted whitewashing you have ever seen" is so baseless as to constitute a personal attack. I am completely within my rights to show how the section can be improved by getting rid of fluff, as I demonstrated above. I do not need consensus or your approval to do so.Momento (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of smuggling are hardly fluff, and with your editing history, my comment is anything but baseless. And yes, a follower of the subject to remove a large amount of critical material would require consensus, to alleviate any COI concerns.Ronk01 talk, 05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when has presenting a proposal required consensus?Momento (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A proposal needs no consensus, but making a major change, like you said you were about to does. Ronk01 talk, 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And where do I say I was about to edit the article. I wrote my suggestion on the talk page as per usual. I may it abundantly clear it was an "example". I said I would "pare down the 70-73 section as per the above example" which clearly means in the same manner as the example by putting in bold what could be removed. And then I reiterate with "as I demonstrated above" again confirming that I will "demonstrate" my suggestion. Followed by "since when has presenting a proposal required consensus". At no point did I suggest I was going to edit the article.Momento (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proposed text. It's about 100 words.

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the West, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months, but no charges were filed. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome prominently featured Rawat. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.

This would go right before the material on the subject turning 16 and getting married.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the Indian festival and Jumbo jets have to do with Rawat. The article doesn't say Rawat was "accused" but it says the Indian government apologised to him. Millennium did feature Rawat but the shortsighted planning and a poor turnout is all about the "movement" not Rawat. The "new millennium of peace" was specifically for "people who want peace".Momento (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that feedback. I've added the "for people who want peace" caveat. I've added "with him" to make it clear that he was also there.   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You could also perhaps add "Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology," and then perhaps come to the conclusion that the whole affair was nothing but a beat-up, for which too much space has already been allocated in this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a short summary - the details are in the text. It already says that charges were never filed.   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a short summary but not an entirely fair one. I don't think the article says he was "accused" and the article shows that the whole affair came to be seen as nonsense. Your suggested summary does not leave the reader with that impression. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that say the whole affair was nonsense. It may be like an incorrect DUI arrest for a celebrity - nothing to it, but it receives immense attention. Be that as it may, it impacted the subject directly, and was among the notable events of his life. This is only a brief mention and it makes clear that there were no charges.   Will Beback  talk  12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Rumiton. Will Beback's suggestion distorts the article. To add that Rawat was "accused" and then to omit that the Indian government "apologised" to Rawat is inexcusable. And his argument to justify it is laughable. If a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia, wrote that a passenger in a car was "accused" of being DUI when they weren't and omitted that the police later "apologised", they'd be sued. And the Millennium bit is almost unreadable.Momento (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And folks wonder why the text gets so long...

The source for the apology is Downton:

• First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government.

Note that many sources cover the incident, but only one source reports an apology. To accomodate the concerns, here's a fresh edition:

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the West, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.

Any other feedback?   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't summarise the article. The Millennium business is about DLM not Rawat. The smuggling bit is hopeless. If people want 100 words on Rawat, I'll have to do it myself.Momento (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Following on from - He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. (new section 110 words) "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".Momento (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We cover the "lived like a king" material in the opulent living material already in the intro, which is why I didn't add it again here. We can add some of that material to the draft - we'll still be well under the 385-word target. The Charismatic leadership is already mentioned in the prior sentence - I'll add it here for clarity, along with the start of the rest of the material.

• In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

Is there anything important we're omitting? There's a whole paragraph about the divinity issue that maybe we should summarize too. Momento, would you like to propose some text for that?   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with my proposal of 110 words for the 70-73 section. It gives it the same ratio of about 1:12 as the 73-83 section. Besides your latest proposal has chronology errors and doesn't say anything about what Rawat teaches which is the basis for his notability.Momento (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the chronology errors? If you don't suggest some text for the divinity issue I will.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How can "The Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" before he arrives? The "divinity" issue is already covered by the name "Divine Light Mission", "his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God" and "new religious movement".Momento (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A topic sentence can cover material from various parts of the paragraph, but we can move it to address that issue. I'll write a "divinity" sentence to cover that issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is glaringly obvious from the above that either you or I can't read or write clear, logical prose. The suggestion that "Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" before "Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries (in 1971)" is bad enough. But when I point out the chronology error, you still don't pick it up. And even go so far as to ask me to point it out again! And then when the obvious is pointed out for the second time, you reply with "A topic sentence can cover material from various parts of the paragraph"?!? Firstly, it isn't a "topic sentence" and even if it was it's still wrong! It seems that your only purpose here is to question and criticise those people who can write clearly and logically according to Wiki policies and guidelines whilst making proposal the fail even the most basic of literary standards. Let's hear from others.Momento (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you've complained about incivility from other users, so I expect you to observe high standards yourself. Please remove your negative personal remarks so we can continue this discussion in a civil and collegial manner.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did make negative remarks about your conduct here. But they are all true and not personal.Momento (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that standard bodes well for civil editing. I'd like to ask you again to limit yourself to discussing the text and not the editor.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that civil editing is paramount, but I also see that Momento's doggedness and his reputation for stubborn persistence seems to be preventing other editors from looking neutrally at his suggestions, which seem valuable. Let's all keep trying to improve this talk page as well as the article. Rumiton (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So do you endorse Momento's claim that I can't read or write? Do you think that insults of that type are appropriate? I've been engaged in a civil discussion and out of the blue I'm described as illiterate. How am I supposed to respond to that remark?   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take several deep breaths and ignoring any personal aspects, look carefully at the substance of his complaint. If you find none, then calmly and neutrally tell him why that is the case. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you think the best response to personal attacks is to ignore them, and Momento defends his right to attack people if his allegations are true. This seems like a different approach than I saw here previously, but I'll extend good faith even though none seems to be extended to me.   Will Beback  talk  10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That was an exceedingly poor atempt at paraphrasing my advice to you, even by the partisan standards that prevailed on this page some months ago. Please try harder to see my point. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Current proposal:

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity and called him the "Lord of the Universe" despite his humble appearance. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

Anything more to add?   Will Beback  talk  10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing seems already a bit lengthy to me, for a summary, but no objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two proposals to cover the period 70-73 that starts a new paragraph after "He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message." and ends before "The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes." Will suggested keeping the same ratio as the article sections in which case this summary should be "about 100 words".

Proposal A - "In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity and called him the "Lord of the Universe" despite his humble appearance. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.(181 words)

Proposal B - "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement"(110 words)

Momento (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Proposal A -

1) The article doesn't say "followers called him the "Lord of the Universe".(unsourced)

2) The article doesn't say Rawat had "a humble appearance".(unsourced)

3) The article sentence that includes the phrase "adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity" begins with "Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs".(selective quoting)

4) The article doesn't say "He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling".(unsourced)

5) The article doesn't say his family was "forced to remain there for months".(unsourced)

6) The article doesn't say "charges were filed" or "charges were later dropped".(unsourced)

7) The article doesn't say Millennium was "promoted heavily".(unsourced)

8) The article doesn't say the poor turnout "damaged (the movement's) credibility".(unsourced)

9) The summary doesn't explain why Rawat "reated an extraordinary amount of interest". It was the "claimed ability to give a direct experience of God".(selective quoting)

10) The summary doesn't include the criticism "lived more like a king than a Messiah" in context and the time that it occurred. But leaves it for a separate sentence. (undue weight)

11) The summary doesn't disclose that the main organisers/disorganisers of Millennium was Rawat's family.(important point)

12) The summary doesn't include that when "Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".(very important point)

13) The summary at 181 words is way out of proportion to the rest of the lead.

I think it's clear that Proposal A is completely flawed so unless there are any errors with Proposal B, I'll put it in.

Momento (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are my issues with option B:

1. Option B takes a highly pro-Rawat stance (conveniently leaving out the smuggling, (which is sourced) and his involvement in Millennium '73 by deferring his blame to his family)

1. Option B leaves out the lifestyle of excess that Rawat adopted in the 70's ("The Playboy Guru" wasn't a misnomer by any means)

1. Option B leaves out much of the harsh criticism that Rawat began to face during the 70's

Ronk01 talk, 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal B is an accurate summary of the "70-73" section.

Fact: As the article makes clear the Indian government apologised to Rawat for their actions because Rawat was innocent. Giving three sentences to a beat up is undue weight. And Rawat had nothing to do with Millennium other than speaking there. He had no management role until he turned 16.

Fact: It is Proposal A that leaves out any comment about Rawat's lifestyle. Proposal B says "lived more like a king than a Messiah".

Fact: As the article makes clear the criticism during the period was that he was "seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" and ""lived more like a king than a Messiah".

Thanks for making your POV so clear. Momento (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a list of issues for such a short bit of text.

1. "LOTU" appears in almost every good source. On re-reading some it may be better to say that he called himself that, or was claimed to be it. We should also mention "Perfect Master" and the Holy Family.

2. "A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human,..." We could say he appeared human, instead.

3. Of course it's selective quoting - it's just the intro and we have to summarize points briefly.

4. Downton says: First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government. But we can drop the family, as that's an unnecessary detail.

5. The festival was in November 1972. The article tells us "In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country." He was stuck from November to June, approximately six months.

6. Downton says: First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government. If he's accurate about the apology then I assume he's accurate about this too.

7. "Rawat's publicity campaign was unparalleled. " We certainly have many sources that discuss the promotion of Millennium '73.

8. "The failure of the event to meet expectations hurt the Divine Light Mission..."

9. There are many sources that say Rawat generated interest. We're not just quoting one. For example, Downton says, The guru's first visit to Colorado in 1971 created great excitement, similar to a Christian revival meeting, as a sizable crowd of young people from the counterculture gathered in the mountains to see the 13-year-old guru whom people were calling the "Lord".

10. This is true. We give too little weight to the opulent living material, which deserves an entire sentence of its own. I'll draft something.

11. The organization of the festival is a good point to include in the article, but it's not necessary for the intro.

12. The summary ends with the material we already agreed to, starting with " When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ...."

13. As we discussed above, the ratio of body text to intro text seems to be about 3.5 to 1, at least for the last bit of text we agreed to. We're still revising the rest of the intro (or so I gather), so I assume we'll expand it as we go. Much of the proposals' current length is a result of your suggestions.

I'll draft a fresh version based on this input. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

That addresses several of the issues raised above.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't corrected most of the errors I pointed out. Please stop wasting our time.Momento (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not every issue raised need to be fixed. See my responses above. Do you have any other input?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Every error needs to be fixed. Every comment needs to exist in the article. And the ratio between "74-83" article and summary is 13:1, so any summary of "70-73" should be about 100 words. But if you think your summary has no errors and follows Wiki policies, guidelines and practices, put it in.Momento (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any errors, I do believe it follows all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and I do regard this as an improvement over the existing material.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All information in the proposal is sourced (BLP and V), notable, and relevant, and since there is no specific guideline regarding ratios for leads of articles, I have to agree with the proposal that Will provided. Ronk01 talk, 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Ronk01, perhaps you or Will can show us where the article says Rawat was "forced to remain there for months".Momento (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but I never said that it was in the article, I merely stated that it should be there somewhere, as it verifiable, non-libelous, and relevant. Ronk01 talk, 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it needs to be in the article as per WP:LEAD - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".Momento (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Ronk01 - As you can see from Will's retraction below, you are wrong, "all the information in Will's proposal isn't verifiable". Momento (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I respnded to that point above:

5. The festival was in November 1972. The article tells us "In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country." He was stuck from November to June, approximately six months.

Are you asserting that he was not forced to stay in India for months?   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Will. Where is the source that supports your claim that "Rawat was forced to remain there for months"?Momento (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear in the article, but we can go back and improve that language if you don't think it makes the situation clear. Here are some sources:

• Six members of the India Parliament, including some from the ruling Congress party, attacked the government for letting the guru leave India in June, after taking his passport earlier in the investigation. Ganesh said the government had permitted the guru to leave India on the advice of the Law Ministry.
  • Boy Guru Suspected of Smuggling, AP Oakland Tribune, Aug. 25, 1973,
• What the generous worshippers may not know is that the Indian Government is still determinedly investigating the mission's finances and allegations of smuggling £10,000 worth of jewels, currency and travellers' cheques from the U.S. last year. Maharaj Ji has already dodged a grilling by India's revenue investigators on three occasions. But when he returns to Delhi this month he must face close questioning - or forfeit a £5,000 bond, the 'smuggled' goods and his passport
  • The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life, Richard Herd. Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21
• Then Indian customs officials seized some $35,000 worth of jewelry, watches and foreign currency when the guru and some disciples, arriving in chartered jumbo jets, failed to properly declare the items. He was charged with smuggling, is currently under investigation and was forced to post a $13,300 bond before being allowed to leave lndia for an English-American tour to spread Perfect Knowledge.
  • Perfect Master on the Ropes?, Rolling Stone magazine, October 11, 1973
• There has been a spot of trouble with Customs. On the guru's return from a world tour last November, accompanied by 400 foreign devotees, US currency and goods with a total value of $27,000 were seixed from the entourage. "Will you be going abroad again?" The smile freezes; the look of suspicion comes back. I realize I've committed a faux pas; the police have impounded his passport.
  • Khushwant Singh, Gurus. Godmen and Good People, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1975

If your passport has been impounded then you are forced to stay in the country.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's clear, there is no material in the article to support your claim that he was "forced to remain there for months". And there are no sources anywhere that say "he was forced to remain there for months". Ronk01 says "All information in the proposal is sourced" he must have something we dont.Momento (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If the police take your passport, that means you are not allowed to leave the country legally. I assume that you're saying he was still able to leave the country without a passport, though it's not clear which country he could get into without his passport. This objection seems tendentious, but if we really need to be literal then let's say his passport was impounded.

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

There. Anything else?   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are still many errors in your proposal but rather than me walking you through each of the errors, you should correct them and then we can see what it looks like.Momento (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an error, but whatever. What other issues do you want addressed?   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is Will. It is an error to claim something is sourced when it isn't. And I've already listed numerous errors that you haven't fixed. While you try to fix your proposal I'm going to keep on going with my earlier proposal.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections I'll post it.   Will Beback  talk  05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. -- Maelefique 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Master o.k., but where in the article does it say he was called "Lord of the Universe"?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's alluded to in the article. I can't believe this is a genuine objection. It would be in the lead, but Momento, Rumiton, and a Jossi-sock edit-warred over it. We are including events that have only a passing in a single source. I can provide three dozen references for it, making it a very prominent POV. We are violating NPOV by not including it explicitly.   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a genuine objection alright. He was not called Lord of the Universe, except on anti-Rawat-pages ("LOTU"), and perhaps avidely colported by tabloid press, with the intention to ridicule him. That's why it has been removed from the text several times, as your quote-marks show. I see no need for a roll-back now. There was a song from devotees in the early 70s, first line: "The Lord of the Universe has come to us today". He never called himself that, nor was he adressed or characterized that way anywhere. OTOH "Perfect Master" was a denomination he used himself characterizing his function. So, to report: he was called LOTU is POV. Would be like writing: Will Beback was called "Best lover in the world" (or something really weird), when your wife said that to you. You would not like that in your BLP. If someone ever wrote that about you, I would also object.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the best lover in the world and I have affidavits that prove it. ;)

As for this assertion, there are numerous scholarly sources that say he was called "LOTU". Far more sources than we have for some other assertion, such as the "apology" that only appears in one source but which editors demanded that we include. Even Downton, the source for the apology, acknowledges that the subject was regarded as LOTU. Now I wasn't there, and I have no direct experience of who said what to whom. But I can read. If we can't include things that have at least a dozen scholarly sources and several dozen reliable journalistic sources, then we might as well cut this article down to a stub because we won't be able to say much of anything. So, I have sources that say he was called that. Do you have any sources that say he wasn't?   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right Rainer. And if you can read Will you will note that the claim "He was called the "Lord of the Universe", does not appear in the article and if it's not written in the article it doesn't get into the lead. But don't waste your time, you started this proposal on the basis that the summary in the lead of the "70-73" section of the article was under represented compared to its size in the article. And that's fair enough and I agreed to it. But if the "70-73" summary is to be anywhere near the same proportion as the summaries of the 60's section (9%), the "74-83" section (7.5%) and the "83-2000" section (6.5%), it needs to be about 100 words (8%) not the 263 words (20%) you're suggesting. If you need any help getting rid of the fluff, take a look at Proposal B, it's concise, accurately summarises the article, full of important info and weighs in at 110 words.Momento (talk)

The issue of it not being in the article can be fixed easily by adding it to the article more explicity. That's not a good issue by itself. Is there any object to adding the same sentence, more or less, to the body of the article?   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. We've already been down this road, remember Aldridge? And the consensus was unanimous that it wasn't appropriate to add material to the article to justify a sentence in the lead and the offending sentence was removed from the lead. And I also object to Proposal A for all the reasons I've given.Momento (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that LOTU is important material to include in the article and in the lead because it is so widely reported. I've re-read the discussions in the past but I don't see any consensus to exclude it. After we finish dealing with the revisions to the intro I think we should take this up again. But, to avoid swamping this process with a contentious issue, I'll drop it for now.

I've addressed each of Momento's points, and made several revisions to the proposal in response. Just saying that they haven't been addressed isn't helping to resolving this.

The weight issues doesn't carry much, er, weight because we're not done revising the intro. While shorter text is often preferable, there are topics where we can't just tell a little of the story without adding certain facts. So some of the length is a result of that process. And this is perhaps the most noted period of the subject's life so far. There are simply more sources doing more reporting and analysis of this period. He had more news stories about him in some months back then than he's probably had in the last ten years, and scholars don't write about him much either. All periods aren't equal in importance.

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

So there's the proposal with LOTU crossed out. Are there any objections to specific inclusions or omissions?   Will Beback  talk  12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in case it wasn't clear, the proposal includes text that would replace the last half of this sentence at the end of the intro:

• Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle

We'd have to re-word that slightly.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: In the text it says: Charges were never filed, while your proposal says Charges were dropped. I see a significant difference there. In my book Never filed means a lower level of substanciality.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's taken from Downton. He writes:

• First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government.

Is there any doubt that he is accurate? If we remove the "dropped" then we'd need to remove the "apologies" too, since they're from the same source. I'd be fine with going with a simple, "charges were never filed", which would shorten it.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't fixed the errors. It's still too long. So my objection still stands and will continue to do so until it's fixed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any specific errors? What do you think about the question raised by Rainer? Would you prefer a shorter "Charges were never filed", or the longer, Downton-based "The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government"?   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? If I can find one more error in your proposal, we'll drop it and insert Proposal B.Momento (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If there are errors let's fix them. Any opinion on the "charges" question, above? If not we can leave as it is in the draft.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thinking it over, "The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government" contains more information and is the preferable alternative, if the issue were mentioned at all in the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And since Will has steadfastly refused to fix the errors I've already pointed out above there is not point in discussing it any further.Momento (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never done anything of the kind. I keep asking you to point out errors and I address them when you do. If there are no other objections I'll post this.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But Will, the article doesn't say the poor turnout "damaged (the movement's) credibility". So it is unsourced and shouldn't be in the lead as I told you days ago. And as for "despite his human appearance", Ronk01 and Maelefique might think it OK but it is a bizarre and unacceptable inclusion!?! Just so we don't forget what an accurate, properly sourced summary of the "70-73" section looks like, here it is again -

Proposal B (amended) (He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.) "His claimed ability to give a direct experience of God created enormous interest among young adults but he was ridiculed by the press who claimed he lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Within a few years he had 50,000 followers in the US and under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium festival in 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management created a large debt and when Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement"(112 words) (The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes.) Any objections?Momento (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Millennium fest, the article says, "reporters found "a confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas"" and "The failure of the event to meet expectations hurt the Divine Light Mission". That seems like a fair summary. As for "human appearance", I don't mind dropping it. I was just trying to add another POV. Let's deal with one proposal at a time.

• In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity. despite his human appearance. He was called the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....

Any more "errors" to fix?   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I find Momento's version more conclusive and elegant, especially when you replace some of the ands with full stops. But I can live with Will's current version, too. Remember, it used to be a lot worse.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are still errors Will and it's still too long. I think you've had long enough, so if there are no Wiki based objections to Proposal B, I'd like to put in in.Momento (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are objection to your counter-proposal: it isn't as complete. Can you point to any remaining errors in the main proposal? Please be specific. I've addressed the length issue above, but you never responded.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did ask for "Wiki based objections". So no problem with sources, no SYNTH, OR or UNDUE WEIGHT. Good.Momento (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's deal with one proposal at a time. We've worked extensively on this proposal. You haven't raised any policy-based objections in days, so I guess that's it. If there's nothing else I'll post it.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you just two examples of how Prop A contravenes Wiki policies and guidelines - 1) the claim that Millennium "damaged (DLM's) credibility" is unsourced and doesn't even appear in the article (as I have already told you) and therefore contravenes WP:VER and WP:LEAD "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". And 2) the claim "DLM had "unparalleled publicity'" is likewise unsourced and doesn't appear in the article and therefore contravenes WP:VER and WP:LEAD as well. There are at least half a dozen more errors but if I edit Prop A to remove them there will be nothing left of value.Momento (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is only one proposal and that is to increase the length of the "70-73" lead summary from 63 words to about 100. There have been two versions put forward. Proposal A which is still full of Wiki errors and 100 words too long and Proposal B that has no Wiki errors and 112 words. We've waited days for you to fix the errors in Prop A but to no avail. So we have to go with Prop B.Momento (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't play games. You haven't said what errors haven't been fixed, despite many requests. "Prop B" is not an option that we've even looked at seriously because it is so far from complete and non-neutral. You pushed through your versions of the other revisions despite objections and I am reluctant to let you do it again. If you won't participate in a good faith effort to actually draft acceptable revision then please don't interfere with the rest of us.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you removed the material about DLM's "unparalleled publicity" and "damaged credibility"? No, you haven't. So why do you say I haven't "said what errors haven't been fixed"? I've given you two right there but Proposal A is beyond saving. It is not my job to write your proposal, I have gone much further than you in "drafting an acceptable revision". I have produced an accurate, properly sourced summary of the "70-73" period of the required length. And your claim that I have "pushed through your versions of the other revisions despite objections" is patently false since nothing has changed in the article without discussion and consensus with the exception of your incomprehensible objection that my suggestion to insert "against his mother's wishes" into the lead was not true to sources when the article clearly says "lack of respect for her wishes"! That fact that you now say "you are reluctant to let you do it again" (add accurate sourced material to the lead) smacks of "I don't like it". I have bent over backwards to encourage you to write a summary that satisfies the criteria but you keep regurgitating the same terrible stuff.Momento (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unparalleled publicity" is in the article. Why would we remove it?   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the "unparalleled publicity" refers to Rawat not DLM.Momento (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, ... was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West."

That sentence is about the DLM. Is it an "error"? As for publicity, here's what the article says:

• Rawat's publicity campaign was unparalleled. One journalist reported, "Thousands of people follow him wherever he goes; posters of his round, cheerful face adorn the walls of buildings in every major Western city; newspaper reporters and TV cameras cover his every public appearance – particularly his mass rallies, which attract hundreds of thousands of followers each."

That doesn't even mention the DLM.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If Momento still doesn't agree to the version that we've developed together, then perhaps the time is ripe for mediation.   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly never agree to putting a summary riddled with problems such as no sources, SYNTH, OR and UNDUE WEIGHT in the article. And since no one has brought up any Wiki objections to Prop B I will give it another 12 hours before putting it in.Momento (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, please stop making ultimatums. I disagree with your proposal but that's not what we're discussing here.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a synthesised proposal? Proposal C - He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God, and followers hailed him as the “Perfect Master.” But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". In the early 70’s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973 was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace" and was described as the "youth culture event of the year," but poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance and created a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May... In fairness, Will, the hiccup of the smuggling allegations seems to have no place in the lead, which needs to be concerned with weightier matters. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, thanks for being more constructive than Momento, but that isn't a good proposal either. "poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance"- I haven't seen that expressed anywhere. I'll go ahead and put in a request for mediation on this issue. Meantime, Momento, please don't make any unilateral edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Prem Rawat   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite like Rumiton's proposal. Not saying it's perfect, but it flows rather better. We could just drop the "poor management and hostile press" and simply say "the event was under-attended". Press ridicule is already mentioned earlier on, after all. --JN466 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay - do you want to join the mediation too?   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Will. --JN466 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break

Rumiton has made another proposal, based on Momento's counter proposal:

• He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God, and followers hailed him as the “Perfect Master.” But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". In the early 70’s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973 was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace" and was described as the "youth culture event of the year," but poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance and created a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May...

There are several problems with this proposal. For one thing, the subject called himself the "Perfect Master" - it wasn't just the followers who used that term. The article says " His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader", not that he was ridiculed for his opulent living, which is a separate issue. It omits any reference to the divinity issue. Momento is concerned about discussing the DMLM too much, so mentioning the growth of the DLM would contradict that concern. As mentioned above, the description of the Millennium festival is incorrect. In his discussion, Rumiton objects to any mention of the smuggling incident. An alternative is that we can cover all of the minor issues (smuggling, ulcer, and Detroit beating) in one sentence.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A sentence covering the minor issues could be something like:

• Rawat received negative publicity over allegations of smuggling in Indian, the beating of a reporter by followers in Detroit, and a hospital stay due to an ulcer.

That's more or less how they are covered in a couple of sources, including Downton.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too much detail with too little context, Will. We should go for the wood rather than the trees in the lead. I'll have a go too:

• He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was presented by his family and senior followers as a divine incarnation. In the early 70s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May... --JN466 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. It reads well and doesn't seem "squabbled over". It is mature and neutral and presents the most important points from the article for the reader. Good example of Misplaced Pages article lead writing, IMO. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't mention stuff in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article. If you want to mention "divine" it has to be in context, so - He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his "opulent lifestyle". The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May... . I'm happy with thisMomento (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento is again trying to deny the facts about Rawat's self-proclaimed divinity. The use of Collier here is highly selective. She wrote: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' " She says he encouraged the views held of him as being divine. It's patently obvious that he did so why this constant sub-text that his divinie status was something projected onto him. He created that impression for goodness sake! I went to listen to him in 1974 and, forget about what other people were 'projecting onto him' - there was no doubt from Rawat himself that he believed to the hilt that he was a unique 'divine' incarnation of the Perfect Master as . It is utter rubbish to suggest otherwise. Nowhere in this article is it clarified enough that he was responsible for this perception and AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY it is suggested that others simply projected it onto him and he was reluctant to accept it. It's skilful persistent revisionism and nothing more.PatW (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually what I am doing is following Wiki policies, guidelines and practices and that means using what Reliable Sources say.Momento (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "... experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under ..." Would that work? --JN466 13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems more in line with the article text. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

" Perfect Master" isn't mentioned in the "70-73" section so it can't appear in the lead. Using the sentence "But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him." works well because a) it shows the conflict between Rawat's "experience based" teachings and "dogma based" teachings; b) doesn't attempt to describe the "ideas", c) doesn't pick a meaning for "divine" which is always a bad compromise between those who believe "divine" means "God" and those who believe it means "of God" and d) is faithful to the text. Momento (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The wording "But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him." has two problems. First, the same that Will's proposal had -- trees, rather than the wood. Too much detail, not enough context. Second, it "blames" the followers alone for espousing these beliefs, and ignores that they were encouraged to have them, by Rawat's family, the mahatmas, and at least to some extent the young Rawat himself. As for Rawat's family and the Mahatmas encouraging these beliefs, this is acknowledged in Geaves' chapter in Gallagher/Ashcraft. There are also Rawat's own early statements like "I will bring peace", and many others like it, which were susceptible to being interpreted in the way that here was a messiah bringing peace to mankind. This does not need to be stated in the lead, but I am uncomfortable with a lead that suggests that followers "had only themselves to blame" if they espoused messianic beliefs. "Perfect Master" is mentioned before and after 70-73 section; it is an appellation that was certainly in use in the 70-73 time period. --JN466 21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Rawat's family, the mahatmas" are followers. They had the most extreme views of them all. And I'm not making this sentence up, it's Downton whose book "Sacred Journeys" is certainly the best source for 1970s Rawat. Momento (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Downton also says, "During 1971, there were social forces encouraging the development of millenarian beliefs within the Mission. They were developed in part by the carryover of millennial thinking from the counterculture; by the psychological trappings of surrender and idealization; by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord. Given the social pressures within the premie community which reinforced these beliefs, there was little hope premies would be able to relax the hold that their beliefs and concepts had over them." --JN466 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

These are profound and nuanced words. Reproducing this intelligent tone and even-handed content in this lead may not be easy. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "... experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under ..." is simply factual. --JN466 00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We must reflect to article. The only mention of "Perfect Master" is "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing" in India in the "60s" section. Which doesn't cover "many of those who became followers" in the west. For "divinity" we are confined to "A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers. Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement.". Both sources and sentences clearly couple the followers ideas with Rawat's attitude. With Rawat "undercutting" and "appealing to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs" about his "divinity". You can't leave Rawat's response out of the discussion. Which is why "Rawat's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity" is a good addition since it covers both sides of the story.Momento (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the whole para the precedes the para above from Sacred Journeys page 199 - "From the beginning , Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge or life force more fully. This, I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age"Momento (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense and a complete whitewash of the truth. The fact is that it was always Prem Rawat himself who claimed divinity and spoke about himself as the Perfect Master of this time. Anyone who was there and actually listened to Prem Rawat's own words cannot deny, then or now, that Guru Maharaj Ji promoted himself as the Perfect Master and the Supreme Being, like Jesus Christ (but infinitely more powerful). Those are not the concepts and beliefs that he wanted premies to give up. Those are the concepts that Rawat himself fed to people all of the time! The concepts that he wanted premies to give up was that he was not the Perfect Master of this time, the only person in the entire universe who could give people perfect peace and liberation through devotion to his holy lotus feet. Here's but one of hundreds of examples of Rawat telling premies what to think, feel, and believe about this very subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjP0teaGNbA There are many more, which I will continue to post here until this crazy revisionism is dispensed with on this page! Sylviecyn (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So, can we agree to insert the following wording in the lead?

He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May... --JN466 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well constructed. I agree.Momento (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the names of the organizers of Millennium '73 so important that we should include them in the lead?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you're asking, but Rawat was 15 then, and was not in charge of organising the event. BBJ and Davis did have a high media profile at the time, so I think it is not undue. --JN466 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they organized it. But why do we need to mention that in the lead? If we want to give a fuller explanation then I can think of several details that are more important than that. I also think that "youth culture event of the year" isn't the most typical evaluation of the festival, so it's probably undue weight to include that. I don't think we develop the idea in this article that the DLM was among the most controversial NRMs of the period. Rawat himself was controversial, and that's what we should say here.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks, Momento; I've dropped it in. Looking at the lead now, it seems to me it lacks material on the three most recent decades of Rawat's life to date. At a minimum, we should add that he travels the world to speak to people about peace, and a mention of the Keys DVDs and satellite broadcasts. --JN466 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I already made a little start and have made a new section below called "83-2000s lead".Momento (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make edits without consensus, Jayen. We've got mediation pending on this issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposal had been discussed here for several days, and there appeared to be progress and agreement; all objections raised were discussed and addressed. I find it rather disappointing that you only voice concerns now, after what seemed a satisfactory conclusion of the debate, given that you have made edits to this page during this period. I know there is a mediation request pending, but I see no sign of any action on that front, and if editors on this page actually can get it together occasionally to find something resembling consensus without inconveniencing a mediator, I think that is on the whole an agreeable development. --JN466 00:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But we don't have agreement. Your proposal has a number of problems that I've pointed out.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your ability to fairly assess proposals has been called into question after your last one that was riddled with unsourced, OR, SYN and UNDUE material.Momento (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another concern is that the "Perfect Master" title is depicted as a title given by acclaim, while many sources I've seen say that Rawat called himself that. There are instances where he was asked what what it meant and he explained why he was the "Perfect Master".   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear what other say. As for "Perfect Master" Jayen's proposal "Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, is faithful to the source and the article "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". He may have called himself that but only after he was accepted as "Perfect Master" by others.Momento (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it not simply be stated what both sources/viewpoints say? Without going into it too much, for example, if one source says A and is valid and reliable, and another source says B and is also valid and reliable, could you simply not say that Source A says X and source B says Y?. If that makes any sense. Steven Zhang 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to write a lead, a broad overview. It's an incontrovertible fact that he was hailed as a "perfect master" by his followers. If you look at the newspaper coverage of this era, this is what they wrote about, time and time again: Here is this Indian kid whose followers call him "perfect master" and think he is a divine incarnation. It's what he was notable for, and it's how he was most often described when he first arrived in the West. --JN466 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So what's the issue? If sources say that followers called Rawat a "perfect master" then why can't that simply be stated. Can I see the source? Steven Zhang 03:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples: , , , , , , , , , , etc. In my view, it's how he was typically described. --JN466 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point SZ. A few sentences before you are supporting the idea of saying "that Rawat called himself a Perfect Master". The lead must follow what the article says, the article says "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master". It is fair to say Rawat was "hailed as a Perfect Master" but the article doesn't say "his mother, brother and the senior disciples called him a "Perfect Master". There is a difference and no one should want to set a precedent for putting stuff in the lead that isn't in the article. WP:LEAD says don't do it and it would set this article back months.Momento (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not reading what I'm saying. First of all, yes, the lead has to somewhat follow the article. However, if the article said that Rawat was 5000 years old and was from Mars, that wouldn't be included in the lead. My point is, if part of the article is wrong, it shouldn't be in the lead simply because it's in the article. This is a controversial article, let's all accept that. Simple solution - add only what the source undeniably says. If the source says followers hailed him Perfect master, then add it. What source/s are being referred to. I'd like to look them over if I could. Steven Zhang 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the article says "that Rawat was 5000 years old and was from Mars" and it was correctly sourced, it "would be included in the lead". What you and Will Beback are suggesting is that anything that can be sourced can be in the lead. In which case you could make the lead say the opposite to the article. The only source for the words "Perfect Master" in the article is Malgalwadi and he is quoted with "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". Hail means to "acclaim enthusiastically as being a specified thing : he has been hailed as the new James Dean". Or in this case "Perfect Master".Momento (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to group me into a party or side in this dispute. I'm merely trying to add my input to help how I can. I'm not really bothered if I input or not. I have plenty of other things I could be doing. Steven Zhang 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawat never called himself a "Perfect Master" until after he was accepted as a Perfect Master. He also called himself a "teacher, master, guru, satguru, servant of god etc" but his use of the titles was far outweighed by other people using them to describe him. "Perfect Master" is mentioned in the article in the "60s" section and Jayen has done well to include it in a neutral, factual way.Momento (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hailed" by whom? Mangalwadi says

• On August 1, 1966, when he was eight years old, he declared himself to be the "Perfect Master." To the thousands of devotees present at his father's funeral, he said, "Why are you weeping? Haven't you

learned the lesson that your master -taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now." Awed at this declaration, his mother, brothers and mahatmas (apostles) present, prostrated themselves at his feet and received his blessings.

Rawat was quoted as saying, in a public talk:

• "The guru is a Perfect Master born of a Perfect Master." he said. "Just as Christ and Buddha and Mohammed were masters, the guru is master. There is always one among us. But this is the first time there has been a perfect master born of a perfect master." March 8, 1974

Other sources say:

• These informants said Mrs. Gandhi herself has taken a personal interest - in her capacity as head of all intelligence agencies — in the controversy swirling around Guru Maharaj Ji, known to his devotees as "lord of the universe," "prince of peace" and "the perfect master."
• To them as to his other followers, he is the "Perfect Master" and "Lord of the Universe." At the funeral, therefore, he confronted his father's mourning flock: "Why are you weeping? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you."
• Maharaj Ji took over at the age of 8 as "Perfect Master" when his father died. He said a voice came to him saying, "You are He. You are to continue." Maharaj Ji said he did not want to become the head guru and would have preferred to be "a mischievous little hoy." But he could not deny his duty and at his father's funeral he told the mourners to stop weeping. "The Perfect Master never dies," he told the flock. "Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you."
• Why do followers of this 15-year-old boy revere him as the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master"?
• The 15-year-old Perfect Master, who lives in India, has an estimated following of 50,000 in this country including a dedicated group in Fayetteville, which emulates his teachings of the knowledge of truth. A Perfect Master, says Maharaj Ji, is "a man who teaches you perfectness," which is attained through knowledge, a matter of experience.
• Guru Maharaj Ji's purpose is to reveal the perfect and practical realization of God to those who take his knowledge. For this reason he is referred to as the "Perfect Master." This is the same knowledge that was revealed by Jesus, Buddha, Lao-tze, and other great spiritual masters of their time.
• He is termed a "perfect Master — one who teaches perfect truth — a title inherited at the age of eight from his late father who had founded the movement in 1960 in India.
• Reminded that many followers believe he is the incarnation of God, Maharaj Ji said, "They might say that, but I don't." "I just call myself a perfect master," the guru said, explaining that there was only one such human on earth at a time — his own late father and Jesus were perfect masters — and that the term referred to an ability to teach that which is perfect — knowledge of God, of the life force or primordial energy within everybody.
• An official biography says that he was born in India 15 years ago, the youngest of four sons of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, "Perfect Master of his time and founder of the Divine Light Mission." His followers claim that Maharaj Ji, who first gave discourse at the age of two-and-a-half, (and his first English discourse at six), became a Perfect Master at eight, barely two weeks after his father's death. A Perfect Master is "one who can teach the Knowledge of God." Maraj Ji is said to be the latest in a long line of Perfect Masters, which include Moses. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna and Rama. There is said to be one Perfect Master present on earth at all times. As the world's only living Perfect Master, Maharaj Ji claims that his teachings reveal the basic aim of all the world's religions. "You can't run the country with a dead president," said one Mahatma in a warm-up satsang before Majaraj Ji's Saturday address. "To get peace, you must go to a living Perfect Master."
• Blue Aquarius is the new rock band of Guru Maharaj Ji, the self-proclaimed perfect master, who is leading a pilgrimage of his followers from all over the world to the Astrodome in November. The Guru claims to be one in a long line of perfect masters--which included Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna and Rama.
• Called the Perfect Master by his disciples, 15-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji will appear ...
• Disciples, such as these at Kennedy Airport welcome, consider 15-year-old guru their "Perfect Master."
• Q. Why do you think you can succeed when other perfect masters failed? A. Listen, man, I'm not saying they have failed; I just say I can bring peace to this world. I'm not asking who passed and who failed.
• Guru Maharaj Ji, the 16-year-old self-styled "perfect master" who is spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission, married his secretary Monday night, the Rocky Mountain News reported today in a copyrighted story.
• The followers call him the "perfect master" and some worship him as God.
• Guru Maharaj Ji, the cherubic-faced Indian boy called the "perfect master" by his estimated six million followers, celebrated his 17th birthday Tuesday.
• In a signed statement, his mother said she is removing her son as spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission and no longer recognizes him as the "perfect master," as he is known to his followers.
• The guru was named the "perfect master" by his mother upon his father's death.
• Once, Maharaj Ji was known as "Lord of the Universe" and "Perfect Master" to his devotees.
• To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that "a fat little rich kid" with a taste for luxurious living and expensive gadgets—and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself—could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: I mean, it's like man is like a big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, 'n' he's going to be like this, 'n' he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is (from satsang concluding Guru Puja '74, Amherst, Mass.).
• He denied that he himself was perfect, asserting only that e could show one perfection. "If you want to learn about mathematics, you go to a mathematics master. If you want to learn about perfection, you go to a Perfect Master."
• Guru Maharaj Ji himself talks about a succession of perfect masters preceding and following him. Since there can be only one Perfect Master living at one particular time, it follows that Maharaj Ji is the satguru of our times. He fulfills the requirements of the perfect master and his devotees have no difficulty ascribing to him the attributes of the godhead.
• He admits bluntly he is the Perfect Master, that most supreme energy, which can refer to nothing else but to God.

And so on. We have sources that say his followers or disciples called him that, and that he claimed the name for itself. The proposed text doesn't reflect either view correctly. As Steve suggests, we should include both.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what is universally agreed by all of you at the moment, and what is still under debate? Steven Zhang 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope we all agree that according to many sources, Rawat's followers called him "Perfect Master". Will, it seems to me, is not happy to say so, without adding that Rawat called himself "Perfect Master" as well, or just wants to say that Rawat called himself "Perfect Master", without saying that his devotees called him that. --JN466 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is a typically bizarre Rawat discussion. Saying that his devotees called him "perfect master" in no way implies that Rawat didn't claim to be a perfect master ... in fact, it rather implies the opposite, doesn't it, especially since we have already said in the first paragraph of the lead that Rawat took over as satguru to millions of Indian followers at age 8, and then travelled to the west to "spread his message". --JN466 04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How many sources state his devotees stated he is the perfect master, and how many clearly state he called himself the perfect master. And how reliable are each of the sources. Is it honestly crucial to have either/both in the article? If so, why? Steven Zhang 04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all sources without exception state that his followers called, or revered, him as a, or the, perfect master. As for Rawat's own statements, they are considerably more varied, as you can see from the above examples Will posted. This is why I went for the phrasing that all sources agree upon: his followers regarded him as that. --JN466 04:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a major issue with something along the lines of, " Rawat's followers revered or called him a, or the perfect master , while state he referred to himself as the/a perfect master . Tweak with the wording, but you get the idea. It's not our responsibility to make an opinion on what happened/was said, only to state that X source said A and Y source said B. Steven Zhang 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not really a contradiction between the two; they go together. Saying that his followers revered him as a perfect master implies that that is the role he assumed for them. Some sources explicitly say both, e.g. . We could say "Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, and asserting himself as such, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers." It is a little clumsy, but if that is what it takes, I can live with it. Or perhaps you can think of something more fluent. --JN466 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that summary is Rawat didn't "assert himself as such". He got up at 8 year's old and took the position once and for all, there was no asserting after that, it was a done deal. The use of the word "Hail" is an excellent choice because it means "to acclaim enthusiastically as being a specified thing, as in "he has been hailed as the new James Dean". And that's exactly what happened. What ever Rawat or the new James Dean called themselves in irrelevant by comparison.Momento (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He was celebrated as that, people like Rennie Davis excitedly proclaimed it, and the word "hailed" expresses that. --JN466 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Where Rawat often, and I believe consistently, contradicted his followers in press interviews was in the assertion that he "was God". Will posted an example above: 'Reminded that many followers believe he is the incarnation of God, Maharaj Ji said, "They might say that, but I don't. I just call myself a perfect master." Or, He denied that he himself was perfect, asserting only that he could show one perfection. "If you want to learn about mathematics, you go to a mathematics master. If you want to learn about perfection, you go to a Perfect Master." But this is far too much detail to get into in the lead. --JN466 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to what you had. It was fluent, accurate and summed up the period. "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". It's light years better than what we've got.Momento (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very happy with that. It reads like English, and I don't believe there is anything factually wrong in it. --JN466 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue: "hailed" by whom? At a minimum, it should say something like "hailed by his disciples/followers".

It also doesn't address the undue weight on the "youth culture event of the year", or why we're naming Satpal and Davis in the in the lead. Maybe we should wait for mediation, as we don't seem to be making any progress.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We already know he's called "Prem Rawat and Maharaji and formerly Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar and the Satguru". "Perfect Master" is over kill. Let's leave it out and Sat pal and Rennie but for something to described as the "youth culture event of the year" shows how significant this event was. So how about - ""He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God and was seen by some as an incarnation of the divine. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973, described as the "youth culture event of the year", fell far short of expectations and created a serious debt for the organisation". Which, coincidently is 101 words we were aiming for.Momento (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll make comments tomorrow, gotta go to work. Steven Zhang 06:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro is the normal place to deal with names and titles. "Perfect Master" was not simply a nickname, it defined the subject's unique role, the one and only living Perfect Master.

We don't need a quote to say that the Millennium festival was an important event. Since it represents a minority view it is not a good choice for the lead anyway. Where do we get "supposed divine status" from? Why are we saying that the DLM was controversial, rather than the subject? Was he criticized for his wealth or for his use of luxury cars and homes? I don't think that version is a good summary of the article or of the sources.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this help?

In a publicly available fragment of a recorded speech, Guru Maharaji speaks of Arjuna asking Krishna how one can find out about the essence of life and death. GM then comments: “Krishna says, ‘You have to go to the Perfect Master of your time.’ It’s so clear, so clear.”

Shortly afterwards in the same speech GM quotes Guru Parameshwara as allegedly saying, “Guru Maharaj Ji is that supreme power, is, and always will be.” Ombudswiki (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are SO not getting it. This is a primary source, a fragment, as you say, posted in isolation on Youtube to promote a certain point of view. There are literally thousands of others similarly posted that promote other, opposite, points of view. Do you want to include them all, or in other words, are you trying to start a war? We must have reputable secondary sources that interpret the entirety of what is available in the light of their own historic and cultural knowledge. These secondary sources need to have established reputations that will be damaged if they get the interpretations wrong. That is what makes them "reliable." The best of them are religious scholars. Please try to understand this point; is is getting very tedious having to repeat it. If you don't believe me, have a good look at Misplaced Pages reliable sources. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton is right that we can't use that as a source. FWIW, all of the excerpts I posted above are from reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that people have found problems with "Perfect Master" perhaps "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with ridicule by the press for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".Momento (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What problems? There are dozens of sources for "Perfect Master", but only a single source for "youth culture event of the year". I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

OK, I'm awake now...heh. Anyway, what's the proposed text to be added or changed. Because I have either not seen it or missed it. Steven Zhang 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his disciples, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May...

What do you think? --JN466 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's significantly better. A relatively small quibble is that few, if any, sources criticized Rawat for his wealth. Rather, it was the ostentatious use of luxurious goods like cars, automobiles, stereos, and homes.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"for his luxurious lifestyle"? --JN466 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Opulent is a better word. Steven Zhang 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Already used in the last sentence of the lead. Wouldn't want to use it twice. --JN466 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawat didn't have disciples, it was a movement with followers. "Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine". If you want "opulent" the source says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle". And the last para should be incorporated into the preceding ones.Momento (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about "luxurious" we should mention that they were gifts as is clearly set out in the article.Momento (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Back when I was making proposals, I was suggesting that we include a fuller treatment of the "opulent lifestyle" matter in this paragraph and leave off the too-short mention at the end. "Gifts" is not needed, but if we're going to devote several sentences to the opulent lifestyle then it'd be appropriate to include it.

As for "disciples", many sources would disagree.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but the article says "followers".Momento (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Followers or disciples is the same to me, I don't mind saying followers if some editors prefer it. --JN466 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of preference, it is what the article says.Momento (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And we have "divine" in twice without mentioning Rawat's attitude to it as expressed in the article.Momento (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As for "luxuries" - "At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts his followers gave him".Momento (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As for followers versus disciples, sources use them both (including those excerpted above). Either is fine with me, but the assertion that there were no disciples is just an editor's opinion.

I'll propose again the text I offered before:

• Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah".

That covers it succinctly and incorporates the text at the end of the lead.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But it mentions nothing about "gifts" and any of this sourced material from the article - "Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West". Which makes your proposal horribly lop sided and look like a POV push.Momento (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." --JN466 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. We could even say, "...automobiles given to him..." to make it more succinct and to accommodate Momento further.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Enough's enough ""opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles". The article talks about gifts and Rawat's and followers explanation of them. You can't just single out the criticism. ""At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts that were given to him".Momento (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He was not criticized for receiving gifts. He was criticized for using luxurious cars and homes, etc. that were given to him. There's a difference.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So how about - "At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for using the luxurious gifts that were given to him".Momento (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with Jayen's version, as I modified it: ""At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles given to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." That seems to cover most of the issue (though it omits several significant) controversies).   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that technically, the homes and cars weren't his, but were put at his disposal by the DLM. Do you happen to have a source to hand? I may be wrong. If I am, then "given to him" is fine. --JN466 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all for the lead, isn't it? How large does the lead have to be, honestly? If less in the lead causes less arguments, isn't that a win-win? People can easily read more below if they want to. Steven Zhang 23:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve has a good point.

As for the ownership of the items, that is mostly unknown and doesn't figure prominently in the sources, so far as I can tell. In the case of the cars, they were for his exclusive use so it wasn't like they were simply made available to him. Smaller items, like expensive audio equipment, was probably either given outright or bought with donated money. But no one really knows. I think we should avoid trying to be over-precise.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence "made available", which is a little fuzzy. Some things he owned, others like the Malibu House and some of the cars were bought by the DLM and made available to him; sources actually do mention that. --JN466 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it makes sense to limit the size of the lead and not only because it creates more arguments. We had established that the 70-73 summary should be about 100 words to keep it in ratio with the article. That is why I have kept my proposals to about 100 words. As per this one - "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But was ridiculed by the press for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. DLM's 'Millennium' event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement" (108 words). "living more like a king than a Messiah" is a good phrase because it appears in the article and covers both luxurious living and the divine connotation.Momento (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"We" didn't establish that this material should be about 100 words - you asserted that. Again, what's wrong with Jayen's last proposal?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You said that "the material in the "1970-1973" section is now almost unmentioned in the intro" and proposed that "we follow the ratio set by the last revision". As I calculated "110 words would give it the same ratio of about 1:12 as the 73-83 section". You then wrote a proposal saying "It's about 100 words". So I assumed you agreed with your own proposal to keep the same ratio.Momento

(talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the ratio, or whether the section has 97 or 136 words really matter? It's about the quality and relevance of what's in there, and not how much stuff is in there. Steven Zhang 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the ratio is just a tool to put a limit on the summary. To try to ensure the summary is more quality than quantity and that only the important stuff is included.Momento (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the current section of the lead as it stands? Then I can figure out the changes and it can be worked on. Talking about it for days doesn't get anything done apart from fill archives. Let's actively work on it. Steven Zhang 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This would replace:

• In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement.

We're trying to summarize the section titled "1970–1973".   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Steven Zhang 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion is now continued below, at #Lead proposal. --JN466 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing with the lead

The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? You would lose an accurate chronology, and historical accuracy, and what would you gain that would be more important? -- Maelefique 06:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento had earlier asked to work on one proposal at a time. Before we start on this - are we done with the previous proposal?   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your "70-73" proposal is dead. In answer to Maelefique, I'm happy to keep the "organisation" sentence in the lead if everyone insists but we need more material from the "83-2000" section and the majority of that section is concerned with Rawat travelling and his message, hence - "He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages".Momento (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should respond to this now, or wait for the other proposal to be completed. If we're not doing this proposals one by one then I have a bunch I can think of making. Should I make them all at once? What's the best way to proceed here?   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to the way all things like 'The Holy family', 'Lord of the Universe' - in short all the things Rawat now wants to disassociate with - are being made out to be things that others projected onto him - kind of against his will. In fact he did nothing to deny any of these things at the time and encouraged these perceptions except in public interviews etc. I mean, when he was sitting under a huge banner saying 'Lord of the Universe' he could have easily asked for it to be removed - same having highly devotional songs sung to him etc. etc. His teachings included the ashram lifestyle where he wanted people to sing Arti (devotional song saying Your are the Lord etc) to his picture on an altar..it goes on and on. I believe Collier goes as far as to say that he was very ambiguous in the way he presented himself. It seems people like Momento, Rainer etc. are all the time arguing with a very particular agenda which depends on focussing on very selective sources to reinforce the insinuation that it was others and ONLY others who misrepresented him as LOTU etc. This is simply untrue. I can't see how this article is not going to simply become a very one-sided misrepresentation of the past of Prem Rawat as long as a few zealous followers persist in this nonsensical basic idea that Rawat was not in any way responsible for the 'Divine' image he encouraged at the time. I really don't have the time to oppose such a concerted 'clean-up' as these people are doing but I do protest, and I really wonder why Misplaced Pages allows partisans to edit in this way. By the Momento I don't 'hate followers' as you've suggested. I do however think you are misguided in the extent you think you should clean up Rawat's image. It's encourages resentment from people who were there and makes Misplaced Pages look ridiculous when people dig for the facts themselves. PatW (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PatW you seem to have no idea of your behaviour. If I was a Jew and editing an article on some Jewish Rabbi and you started criticising me and Rainer as "a few zealous Jews", you'd be thrown off Misplaced Pages. And no one denies that Rawat arrived in the West will a fully formed Hindu style religion with all that entails, Arti, darshan, saffron robed monks, bharjans, pranams, Jai Satchitanand, Bhole Shri and stories of Ram and Krishna. For you to suggest that the early days of Rawat in the West was some how hidden from people then or now is absurd. And for anyone to suggest that Rawat's and his followers behaviour in those days was illogical and unacceptable is religious bigotry about a religious style that predates by hundred of years the extraordinary Christian fable of virgin birth and rising from the dead.Momento (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine one coming from you who consider anyone who criticises you or Prem Rawat as having a 'hate' agenda or being a member of a 'hate group'. FYI I am sensitive to how inappropriate it is for someone with a partisan POV to edit here and have mostly refrained from doing so on that principle. A principle that you clearly don't have. My partisan POV is mild compared with yours - I am not passionately anti-Rawat I just happen to have a few little personal criticisms. You are the opposite. You are passionately pro Prem Rawat (as is born out by your single-purpose dedication to this article), I bet you couldn't produce a single personal criticism of Prem Rawat let alone approve of one that has been levelled at him, and yet you claim/pretend you can exercise amazing impartiality and that you are only concerned with exercising Misplaced Pages 'correctness'. I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that you are continuing the trend of removing criticism. It's like you're on a mission or something. Anyway I want no part of it - I see it as a fault of the system that partisans can be so pushy and get away with it. Good luck. PatW (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I totally agree that Rawat's Hindu past and his and his followers beliefs etc should be fully accepted and described without bigotry. I agree! That's why I object that the tone of the article always seems to end up playing down Rawat's beliefs and portraying all the Hindu stuff as if it were baggage imposed upon him by his followers. Why not be truthful about it and make it clear (using sources) that Rawat himself was, as the leader, responsible for promoting all this stuff? Why play that down as if it was shameful? There is your 'bigotry' if any. This and a lot of the recent rhetoric put out by Rawat's organisations strongly suggests to me that there is a real denial going on here that somehow is reflected in this article.PatW (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As history clearly demonstrates Rawat took over an existing following of millions of Indians with existing beliefs which he inherited as an 8 year old. He played no part whatever in creating these inherited beliefs which in India are mainstream. When he came to the west he brought it all along. And from the time he stepped off the plane as a 13 year old he started to become more westernised until his westernisation split the family in 1974. For the next six years he began systematically removing the Indian aspects from his teachings until nothing remained. By contrast the Dalai Lama, the Maharishi, Muktananda, Shri Chinmoy and Osho were still wearing robes decades later or dead. You want Rawat to take personal responsibility for centuries of Indian stuff? The thing Rawat is personally responsible for is getting rid of it and that he did before he hit 25 years old, 30 years ago.Momento (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact his he held on to it and still believes in it largely, as is demonstrated by recent video linking his line of succession back to Totapuri. He got rid of the outward form for sure in the west eventually but not before instigating 2 separate generations of Ashram which involved much ritual and dogma. He maintained that these were the mainstay of his work up until 1982. More but got to go.PatW (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Making a link with Totapuri doesn't signify holding on to anything anymore than saying my family line goes back to Ireland. And yes, he even got rid of the ashrams.Momento (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What kind of bad reasoning is that for goodness sake? Making a link to Totapuri (a well-known and revered historic Indian saint) signifies FAR MORE than saying 'my family line goes back to Ireland'! You know that don't you..so you must be just mocking the intelligence of people.

Re the ashrams: How about all the YEARS he DIDN'T get rid of the ashrams but heavily promoted them? Isn't it about time you stopped asserting/stressing one side of the story. PatW (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The other reason this whole 'getting rid of Indian trappings' thing seems to me to be incredibly odd is that Prem Rawat actually still holds true and teaches essentially exactly the same thing as he always has. This sentence: "For the next six years he began systematically removing the Indian aspects from his teachings until nothing remained." is just misleading. He still teaches the exact same meditation, satsang and service, darshan, Satguru etc He's just changed the words to 'practice Knowledge', 'Attend a program', 'Participation' etc. 'The Master' etc.PatW (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's own version of his Master Lineage

In support of my argument above this is a current video release (made by WOPG) of Prem Rawat talking about his father, the family split and his traceable lineage 'thus far'. I suspect that he has been fed the rather vague 'guru family tree' by Ron Geaves - but this is just an educated guess since this lineage appeared on Prem Rawat's official personal website shortly after Ron Geaves' paper on the subject. I believe that it is well worth all those involved here watching this as it informs well of the perception Rawat has that he is descended from a very particular lineage. I should add that a friend of mine who knows Ron Geaves and is also a doctor of Indian Religion commented that, in his view, the linking back to Totapuri in the C18 is wishful thinking since records in India are notoriously vague and successions constantly disputed. Anyway at 8 mins 44 it says this - "Even though references to the techniques of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable history thus far - Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780-1866), Sri Anandpuri Ji Maharaj (1782-1872), Sri Adwetanand Ji (1840-1919), Sri Swarupanand Ji Maharaji (18844-1936), HRH Yogiraj Paramhans Sadgurudev Sri Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966), Maharaji (Prem Rawat). PatW (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWfSZ5cr5Q PatW (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that link as supporting your agument at all. Obviously he considers himself the heir to his father's mastership, and his father's guru and the one before that are well documented. Earlier than that no doubt it does get vague and disputed (like everything else in Indian spirituality), but who finds that important? "Stephen Hunt writes that Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion , but rather as adherents of a system of teachings focused on the goal of enjoying life to the full." I don't think adding primary sources like this one in an obvious attempt to sway editors to your point of view is in accord with Misplaced Pages policies. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This information is not just from this primary source, it is also in Ron Geaves' paper called "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage". Here he says: "Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows...etc". Since you accuse me of "attempting to sway editors to your point of view" please would you explain what inappropriate POV you are talking about? As far I can see, this paper (plus the primary sources) provides good evidence that Prem Rawat currently not only believes in, but also is quite proud of his Indian spiritual heritage and that Momento's suggestion that all this is no more than an everyday, uninteresting, un-notable genealogical exercise is absurd. http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/academic/geaves_lineage.html PatW (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your presumably wanting to exclude this information because of your disinterest and Hunts idea that "Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion , but rather as adherents of a system of teachings focused on the goal of enjoying life to the full". When Prem Rawat publishes HIS spiritual succession on his website etc. don't you think that suggests that he wants people to be aware of his roots and that might just be something he is proud of and that enhances his credibility as a Master promoting the same essential teachings as those before him? Because THAT is what he is saying. Saying "I come from a long tradition of revered Masters" is clearly not an isolated, irrelevant statement. It has an effect and intent and says something important and distinct about his teachings that saying 'he was related to someone in Ireland in 1843' (which is the gist of Momento's argument) would not achieve. In short it is relevant and important and interesting. It is also of some interest that Geaves' publication of this lineage is apparently motivated partly to refute statements from what he calls (in the paper) "vociferous dissatisfied opposition of ex-members". PatW (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton. There is nothing remarkable about a Guru having a Guru having a Guru etc. It is the norm. It would be far more remarkable if Rawat said he didn't have one. And, of course, Rawat "not only believes in, but also is quite proud of his Indian spiritual heritage". Why wouldn't he be? PatW's suggestion that we want to "exclude this information" is contradicted in the second sentence of the lead when we clearly state that "Rawat succeeded his father as Guru".Momento (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone interested in finding out about Prem Rawat should rightly expect to find in this article some reference to the roots of the teachings of this person who claims to be a Master. Especially since it is currently proclaimed elsewhere and in scholarly papers (albeit by Geaves). It's as simple as that. I think that the article is confused - followers cannot reconcile their desire to present Rawat now at every turn as someone who 'reluctantly inherited the baggage of Indian tradition' (blaming followers) and yet have to reconcile this with the fact that he is still teaching the same Indian derived teachings. There is no mention of the 'lineage' this man is so proud of in the article beyond the very confused 'Teachings' section where AGAIN the rhetoric is again clumsily over-keen to stress that "in In the 80s Rawat eliminated the Indian traditions" and there is no mention of the lineage. The fact that Prem Rawat claims a direct line of mastership from a very revered 18 century Indian Saint is fundamentally important to include. Even Geaves says in his paper: "Maharaji has successfully brought these ancient teachings from India to the world arena and given them such a unique new form in which they are able to be uprooted from their origins in the subcontinent whilst maintaining the essential message of the previous master."PatW (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect

In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations.

I know Momento will argue that sources support this sentence but I suspect that there are sources around that could be found to balance the obvious wrong impression this section gives. Prem Rawat should not be misrepresented as as someone who just 'got rid of ashrams' and 'Hindu dogmas' and his belief of the Perfect Master as being a God etc. but actively promoted these things himself in 1980 and beyond. Below are videos of a meeting in Rome in 1980 where he he says -

• "Someday, with Guru Maharaj Ji's grace, there'll be ashram everywhere .."
• "Look when there is going to be Guru Maharaj Ji in this world, whenever Guru Maharaj Ji is going to come in this world, and has, and will, and you know by his grace will keep coming again and again and again. Cause it's not guaranteed either. He can skip a term and that'll be the devastation of this entire planet."
• "When Guru Maharaji Himself, like I said, that power Himself, accepts and will and does, take a human form, so that you can relate, for every individual human being, then what do you think is left that you can't understand? Do you think He'll come in this world, do you think Guru Maharaj Ji comes in this world to make the most incredible thing the simplest thing and then take the simplest things and make them so incredible that nobody can understand them. It doesn't even make sense."
• "We have to understand that what we have to do is what Guru Maharaji wants us to do not what our stupid mind tells us to do."

He was very strong about these things as you can see. There are plenty of transcripts of similar 'Satsangs' in DLM magazines from the time that exist in libraries etc. PatW (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that de-Indianising the teaching of Knowledge did not happen in any one year and the article should not say so, but we are at the mercy of sources who apparently say it did. See my comment above re primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are people with an established reputation among their peers which can be damaged if they don't do their research thoroughly and professionally. Opinionated Misplaced Pages editors are often people who will be congratulated by their peer group if they succeed in promoting a one-sided interpretation of events. That's why they don't get to write the articles. Nothing personal; that's how it is. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, this is whitewash. Do you not acknowledge that 'opinionated editors' HAVE 'got to edit the article' and are continuing to do so? The devil is in the detail. a) there has been a lot of paraphrasing of certain articles which appears to be unbalanced & selective. b) The strict adherence to these sources is a grey area and apparently not so black & white as opinionated editors have argued and 'wiki-lawyered'. I am not arguing to include primary sources, but they need to be taken into consideration in this case so that uninformed editors can see when unscrupulous editors are using sources in a one-sided manner. PatW (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As the sources clearly prove and the article says Rawat began removing the Indian aspects in "the 70s" and they were completely removed in the "early 80s".Momento (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So exactly where does it say "they were completely removed in the "early 80s"? Anyone?PatW (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the article PaTW. "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever"."The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations. In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives.Momento (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So nowhere is the wording 'completely removed' used in a source or 'In 1980'. I wonder who put that in. Anyway I suggest that it would be a more accurate to use a less absolute adjective than 'completely' for the time-being as this is highly debatable. Also 'In the early 80's would also be more accurate than 'In 1980' . Can you stop referring me to the article paraphrases and tell me what the sources actually say on these 2 points?PatW (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do your own research PatW, all will be revealedMomento (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How 'uncollegial" can you get? If you had an ounce of decency you'd share the original quote from Björkqvist to prove your point. Instead you are evasive and mocking. Thanks a lot.PatW (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PatW (a little celestial music, please, Maestro. Something exultant by Handel would be fine!) but I don't see any ill intent here. I don't know Finnish, from whence the "In 1980..." quote originally comes, but if the language resembles German then it may lack the array of tenses we are used to in English. "He removed..." in Finnish might well be meant to convey the idea of removal without necessarily implying that the removal was completed in that year. Problems like that arise in German-English translation often. Since we have a good English language source (Miller) telling us that closing the ashrams in 1983 marked the end of the process, I see no problem in amending the problematic first sentence accordingly. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy with the 'Hallelujah Chorus'. Thanks. PatW (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop the music! The whole point of asking PatW to do some research is so that he would learn to stop treating others as his personal research assistants and discover for himself what Björkqvist actually said (and not go off into this tangent of what a Finnish Björkqvist might have said). So PatW, and Rumiton, it's very simple, all you do is Google the source "World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin" and read it. And what Björkqvist actually said was "In 1980, Maharaj Ji took a new initiative: he declared that he wanted to get rid of all the "religious" aspects of the movement, in fact, he wanted no movement whatsoever. All ashrams were abolished, and people who had been living in them in some cases for 10 years or more suddenly found themselves back to normal life. He abolished all satsang meetings. Divine Light Mission as an organization was also abolished. Most followers stopped being vegetarians, although to a greater extent they continued the practice of meditation". So a more accurate sentence would be, drum roll, "In 1980, Rawat declared he wanted to remove all the "religious" aspects of the movement and now wanted "no movement whatsoever". Momento (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Momento. I'm glad that you now don't deny that the article's current text was distorting the words of Björkqvist. Clearly he did not say that in 1980 Rawat removed anything. He merely says he declared his intentions in that year. The changes gradually took effect over the ensuing years which is more correct. Actually Björkqvist goes on to say 'The changes during the 80's were gradual.' For the time-being I suggest that we say something like this- "In 1980, Rawat declared he wanted to remove all the "religious" aspects of the movement and now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The changes during the 80's were gradual. The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way..etc" This removes the confusion and leads better into the next section: "In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams" PatW (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side note might I say that Momento's suggestion that people should withhold information about sources to teach me a lesson about "treating others as his personal research assistants" is a very combative attitude. I am starting to see that the whole process of editing would run much smoother if people actually shared information and didn't treat sources as personal hidden resources. Some of these sources are not so easy to find... believe me I am trying. So if everyone here pooled resources it would be good. It only suits people with a malicious agenda to be secretive.PatW (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where "a malicious agenda to be secretive" occurs? But my version of Misplaced Pages provides reliable sources for all the material in the article, usually at the end of the sentence in question. In this case Björkqvist's "World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin". So if anyone wants to check the material they simply look it up. I Googled Björkqvist's essay and found it in (0.61 seconds), scrolled down the page and five seconds later cut and pasted Björkqvist's original quote. Now, if that seems like I, and Misplaced Pages and the world, are "treating sources as personal hidden resources" as part of "a malicious agenda to be secretive" I'm afraid I'm not qualified to solve your issue.Momento (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross purposes are being argued to. I think (hope) PatW was speaking generally. To paraphrase him: Being secretive would only suit those with a malicious agenda. Right, Pat? Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. A general comment. Secretiveness isn't far from 'ignoring' people. It's all in the same ballpark. It's all a little malicious when we are supposed to aspire to a bar of 'collegiality'. I'm reading rather enlightening stuff over at Wales' page and wonder if we maybe nearing a time when the NPOV policy is reviewed. Here's the sort of stuff they're saying

Misinterpreting NPOV, misinterpreting UNDUE, misinterpreting FRINGE—and rewriting pages to suit the agenda, then edit-warring when anyone tries to fix them....Editors are belittled, told that they don't a good enough understanding... hit with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE if they try and post a minority view, and are consistently combative. And if you ask them to explain their position, they just ignore the question....The problem is that the NPOV policy is so badly written—and in particular the much-misused UNDUE section—that it allows editors to make it say whatever they want it to say. Attempts to explain on talk pages that it's being wrongly applied are ignored by editors who use it to exclude significant-minority POVs, rather than seeing it as something that's there to protect those POVs. The letter of the policy is being used as a weapon against the spirit of the policy. The result of this—apart from our having a lot of rotten articles —is that we're going to fail to attract a new generation of Wikipedians, because without strong institutional support for neutrality, the project is a significantly less attractive place to work. PatW (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"1983-2000s" lead summary

The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would we leave out this sentence:

• The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

We discussed this extensively in the past.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it in now that we are expanding the lead in proportion to the article sections.Momento (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a proposal:

... The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. He continues to tour extensively, speaking about peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle. --JN466 03:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK to me, just hit Enter a couple of times after "...languages." to break up an otherwise jarring non sequitur. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --JN466 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think, Will? Anyone else? --JN466 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in this proposal we need to concentrate what happened in the period concerned. Leave the "Teachings" for a separate para. So a version of this ".... to make his message more widely acceptable. In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital, and removed the last of the Indian aspects that were prominent in his teachings. He continued to tour extensively and according to Chryssides Rawat had 1.2 million followers worldwide, with 50,000 in the United States.In 2001 he founded the Prem Rawat Foundation, a Public Charitable Organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. The TPRF website says that "his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages".Momento (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And remember, EV is (or was) going to be replaced with another organization. That needs to be in the article and lead as well. Ronk01 talk, 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Jayen's draft is pretty good. Regarding the new organization, I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources on that yet.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

http://elanvital.org/ (for information only) --JN466 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A summary of Rawat in the 83-2000s period that doesn't mention the removal the last of the Indian aspects and the size of his following, is fatally deficient.Momento (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How many proposals are we going to work on at once?   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like two. We thought the other one was finished but not quite.Momento (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not another two or three? I though you wanted to work on only one proposal at a time.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Taking the various comments on board:

... to make his message more widely acceptable. In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital, and removed the last Indian aspects in his teachings. In 2001 he founded the Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. He continues to tour extensively, speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.

• This, for now, omits figures as to the size his following. The figures in Momento's draft relate to 1990, according to our article; I feel if we mention figures in the lead, we should use a more recent source. But we can work on that later. Is this something we could use for now? --JN466 01:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we put this on hold until we've settled the other proposal?   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks very close but I'm happy to hold if Will wants to. But the "Teaching" section is the reason for Rawat's notability and needs more work.Momento (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, the two proposals interact, because of the mention of opulent living now appearing a few paragraphs earlier. The complete lead would look like this: --JN466 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion closed ; See below.   Will Beback  talk  14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Downton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Downton (1979)
3. Björkqvist, K (1990): World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin. In N. Holm (ed.), Encounter with India: studies in neohinduism (pp. 79-99) - Turku, Finland. Åbo Akademi University Press
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hunt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Melton1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. "The Prem Rawat Foundation website". Retrieved 2008-06-09.
7. ^ Barret (2003), p. 65
8. Geaves (2004), pp. 201–202
9. ^ Schnabel (1982), p. 99
10. Rudin & Rudin (1980), p. 65
11. Geaves (2004), pp. 201–202

Lead proposal

Current version

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.

In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Proposed version

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculedmocked in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including lLuxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and progressively abandonedeventually removed the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. ; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Discussion

If you think this is better than what we have, then let's go for it. --JN466 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This includes changes that we haven't discussed. Can we settle the pending proposal(s) before starting in with this?   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the only one is "progressively". I realised that we would have had two mentions of the phasing out of Indian elements. "Gradually" might be a better word. Otherwise, it reflects current status of the two proposals above, to the best of my knowledge and ability. --JN466 02:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we wait until the other proposals are finished, one by one?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead as a whole is looking much better and it helps to see it all in one place. But there are two things that bother me. One is saying "His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes ... likewise received media attention", presents his "opulent lifestyle" as a fact, when it is the just the personal opinion of an ex-employee and a Rabbi. Far too loaded and biased for use in the lead. And the second is that Jayen dismisses material, which makes up more than half the section, with "He continues to tour extensively". Where is the summary of "According to a 1983 article, Rawat continued to "energetically serve his followers", flying to speaking engagements in major cities around the world almost continually. In two years he spoke at over 100 programs in 37 international cities, including New York, London, Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Rome, Delhi, Sydney, Tokyo, Caracas and Los Angeles. The number of Rawat's students grew in the 1980s and 1990s as Rawat toured extensively, speaking in over 40 countries, including Japan, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Slovenia and Venezuela. In 1990 there were said to be 1.2 million followers worldwide, with 50,000 in the United States. 1999 saw the commencement of regular satellite broadcasts to North America and other countries....Between January 2004 and June 2005, Rawat delivered 117 addresses in Asia, Europe, and North America focusing on a universal message of peace and self-fulfillment. His message is currently distributed in eighty-eight countries in print and on video, and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels such as Canal Infinito in South America, Channel 31 in Australia, and Dish Network in the USA. Elan Vital states that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year. In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million?"Momento (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Some semantic points: 1. Opulence is relative. We all might look opulent to someone who lives in Bangladesh. 2. "Ridiculed" is probably a bit strong as well, especially in the context of being ridiculed for his youth. "Mocked" or "derided" might be better. 3. The Prem Rawat Foundation has all capitals. 4. "At the same time" and "also" (...attracted controversy) mean much the same thing. One could go. 5. "Abandonment" of something that is no longer viable (sinking ship, crashed aircraft) is something that is mostly done urgently, rarely "progressively." Progressively seems right, so abandoned must be wrong. How about "progressively removed" (...the Indian trappings)? Rumiton (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also concur with Momento that we have enough sources to describe his more recent activities in rather more detail than that suggested. Rumiton (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions do not conflict with other proposals being discussed. Looking in only once every day or two, it is hard to get a clear view of the process. Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a version at 6 Aug which I restored. For some reason a bot seemed to have archived everything since 6 July. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because the bot is set to 30 days. --JN466 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, but unless I have it wrong, the archiving was of material newer than 30 days, rather than older. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Changes in response to comments implemented above, marked. Rawat's recent activities: we could indeed have more on this (satellite broadcasts, DVDs). Editors who wish to see more material on recent activities in the lead should remember though that while we are discussing and refining our proposals here, the public continue to see a version of the lead that says nothing at all about recent activities. --JN466 11:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So - are we abandoning the other discussions and now just discussing this one proposal? Like Rumiton, I'm having trouble following the process here.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful if you could have a look through the above and let me know what you think. It combines the most recent status of the two proposals that we were discussing, so we can see all of it in one place. I'd say it is more straightforward if we continue discussion of those proposals here. I've transferred the most recent wordings and stitched them together as best I could; if you feel there is something I haven't carried across correctly from the discussions above, please let me know. --JN466 12:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We never finished the discussions above - I never even got to discuss the issues with the 1980s proposal. If we want to discuss this proposal now let's close the others so we can focus on one thing at a time.   Will Beback  talk  12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a note to that effect to the #Convenience break 2 section above. --JN466 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, some of us are not as bright as others, and we need to keep this simple. I've pasted the current version in so we can see better what we're changing, and adjusted refs and hdgs, etc.   Will Beback  talk  14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Ridicule" is the word we use in the article. I don't see how "mocked" is better.
• "Progressively" implies a constant progression. It's well known that there was a return to short-term return to Indian trappings in the later 1970s.
• "He continues to tour extensively, speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages." This is poorly worded. Is this too much detail for a lead?
• "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)." has been there for a year. Why change it to "In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital. In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts." That's a major POV change. I propose we retain the old language.

Those are my immediate concerns with this draft.   Will Beback  talk  14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Addressing your points in sequence:
  • "Ridiculed/mocked" -- I don't mind which.
  • "Progressively" -- suggest "eventually", or just deleting "progressively".
  • Proposed wording is okay by me; if you can improve on it, please suggest alternative. (On reflection, I think I agree the "97 countries and 70 languages" are a bit too much detail for the lead; we could mention some of the other recent stuff rather than count languages and countries.)
  • TPRF promotes his message; that's a valid thing to mention. Upon checking, I find the charitable work has as good as no RS mentions; so I tend to agree with Will it's undue in the lead. --JN466 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Draft updated, pls review. --JN466 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will, it should be "ridiculed" as per article. Replace "progressively" with "began". Needs some detail of his efforts and numbers of followers. DLM, EV , TPRF should be handled as they occurred not lumped together. TPRF is not POV it is a fact that TPRF says it. I have made changes and improved flow.Momento (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mm, you've changed a lot. Some of it is fine by me, but I doubt we'll be able to get consensus that way.

Thinking about the TPRF humanitarian work issue, there are some sources to be had that document that they do such work: --JN466 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I haven't done much at all. ln the "70-73" section I made it easier to read by joining a few sentences together and removing "gained further prominence" as it is covered by "he created an extraordinary amount of interest". In the "74-73" section I removed "luxury homes and cars" because there is "only one luxury home" mentioned (the other abodes were "residences reported" to exist around the world in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia and not subject to criticism). What criticism there was, was about his Malibu home and "luxury gifts" such sports cars. In the "83-2000s" section I added important info about his following and his travelling. Rawat is notable as a teacher who travels the world and it is absurd to leave it out. The info about TPRF is noted as coming from TPRF. If you read the proposal from start to finish it is an easy to read, accurate, neutral mini bio of Rawat.Momento (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As for consensus, no one has achieved it so far but the latest proposal is better written, more concise, closer to the article and covers every important point. The only issue that I see is the idea that including "followers numbers" and "evidence of Rawat's almost constant travelling" has been described as too much detail for a lead but that is purely because "numbers" and "places" are details by nature. And in this case very important details in understanding the life of Prem Rawat.Momento (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If folks are changing the posted text could they please mark it so the changes will be clear. Use a different font or color, perhaps. I don't want to half to spend ten minutes just trying to figure out what we're talking about.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to see in the diffs but what I wanted to do is present a clear version so that you could get the idea of how it will look in the article. (I had no idea you could use different colors). It may not be perfect but it considerably better than the current version, which is good for Wiki and our readers, and it is something I think we can all live with.Momento (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you won't mark your changes then will you list them here? We were discussing Jayen's proposal, but now you've hijacked it with your own proposal. This process is really not working very well.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Jayen hijacked my proposal and it certainly isn't working with you making comments like that. And the changes a very easy to see here .Momento (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the wisdom of this system, but I've posted a version based on Jayen's last, with just one change to make it closer to the existing text, regarding the succession of organizations.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Two proposals, please choose

Proposal A -

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

At thirteen Rawat traveled to the West where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine and under his charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time Rawat also attracted controversy and was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement.

The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat rretained the support of his followers outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. In 1983 Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by a more secular Elan Vital.

Rawat continued to tour almost constantly, piloting himself to speaking engagements in more than 40 countries around the world. In one two year period he spoke at over 100 programs in 37 international cities. By 1990 he had 1.2 million followers worldwide and in 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. He continues to tour extensively speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation, his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

Proposal B -

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculedmocked in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including lLuxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and progressively abandonedeventually removed the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. ; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Once again Will has made a proposal (B) with obvious errors. Including duplication, glaring omissions, unsourced material, UNDUE WEIGHT and SYN.Momento (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After a careful reading, I can see merit in both. A has some important extra content (the current traveling etc) but I think B is better punctuated. Both say "married an American against his mother's wishes" which strikes a strange note for me. I picture his mother saying, "Oh no, not an American, anything but an American." It reads better with the 2 words "an American" removed. I doubt if she would have approved a New Zealander either. I understand and share editors' fatigue and frustration, but if the choice is between these versions, I would like to do some synthesising. Is that OK? Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I rather echo Rumiton's assessment; there is merit in both. Re the question of home/homes, see . It is correct to say that the Malibu purchase drew most attention, but several elegant homes were indeed mentioned in press reports, even before that purchase. The part on luxurious living is clearer in proposal B. I would be prepared to take proposal B as a half-way house step, just so we actually get something into the article, on the understanding that we look at expanding the content on the most recent three decades afterwards. What Momento has written there (after "The following May ...") has potential, but I am uneasy about the 1.2 million/50,000 figures in proposal A. I am not sure that is borne out by other sources. I know it is in the article, but this area may need some more research; I'd rather use some more recent figures in the lead. The "extensive touring" is duplicated in A, and it generally sounds a little too much like a celebratory listing of Rawat's achievements. Rumiton, if you want to have a go at synthesising the first half of B with something based on the second half of A, I'll gladly take a look at what you can make of it. --JN466 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen, but events (see below) have rather overtaken me. I'll just watch for a while and see what other points get raised. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The first big problem I see is that both proposals make it seem that Rawat himself gained no wealth from this, both proposals seem to intimate things like "he got gifts", and the homes he stayed in were "made available"? If someone visits me, I might make my home available to them, I certainly don't turn it over to them to do with as they please for the rest of their life, renouncing ownership of it! And lets not forget who told those followers to renounce their worldly goods in the first place! -- Maelefique 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you propose a small change that would capture that view better?

As for myself, I've already expressed a preference for the draft I posted.   Will Beback  talk  18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As with Will Beback' previous effort it is fascinating to see editors support a proposal that has unsourced material, glaring omissions, SYN and duplication. And how can you avoid mentioning a) Rawat's "following" and b) his extraordinary efforts to speak about peace? Not only does it take up half the section, it is the cause of his notability. Sounds like "I don't like it" because it shows his large following and, as the article says ""Rawat continued to energetically serve his followers". Less bias please and more info for readers.Momento (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding that last sentence in Momento's reply, it was added to the article by Momento himself. It's a very incomplete summary of that source. If we regard that as a reliable source, there's quite a bit more we could add from it, much of which gives a very different view than the quoted excerpt.

Regarding the overall proposal, most of it seems based on previous proposals by Momento. No matter how many compromises are accepted by other, Momento seems to keep demanding more and more changes.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right Will. I am almost solely responsible for fixing up the errors in the lead, everything from wrong dates to incorrect claims. Yet whenever I suggest an improvement it is met with a barrage of obstacles and insults. Now I want to fix up to "83-2000" summary for the lead which, despite being an entire section in the article, is not mentioned in the lead. Let me repeat that, the entire 400 word section about Rawat's activities in "1983-2000", nearly 30 years of travels and talks, is not mentioned in the lead. As far as the lead of the Misplaced Pages biography of Prem Rawat is concerned he mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth in the 70s.Momento (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're discussing 1983-2000s then why are we discussing the entire lead? I suggest we finish with the 1970s material first and then move on to the later periods.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speak to Jayen, he's the one who hijacked the discussion.Momento (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you object to finishing the 1970s material before we go over the 1980s and later material?   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the glaring omission of any "83'-2000s" summary. I'm happy to work on my last correction to the current proposal for "70-73"-

"...millions of Indian followers.(leave out "further prominence etc" as the following sentence covers it) At thirteen Rawat traveled to the West where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine and under his charismatic leadership the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time Rawat also attracted controversy and was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers. DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen... Contrary to Rumiton's opinion about punctuation, the previous version with short sentences sounds like a telegram.Momento (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's mostly OK, but Jayen's proposed text: "Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. Luxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." is better for that section.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Except, as I explained two days ago, the article doesn't mention luxury "homes". And if the criteria for inclusion is "received media attention" then the appropriate inclusion would be - "Although Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world" he was criticised for the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers". You can't just present one side of the story.Momento (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Although Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world" that might belong in a section on the subject's teachings, but it doesn't really concern the fact that he received negative attention for his opulent lifestyle. Also, that quote about not abandoning the material world comes from a spokesman named Richard Profumo, and appears in a Newsweek article that lists several luxury residences and many other hallmarks of opulent living. How about this: "Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury homes and automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention." And then in the section on his teachings we can add that his spokesman said he wasn't telling people to abandon the material world, though perhaps that would be the place to say that his followers lived lives of austerity and gave him their incomes and inheritances.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can say it any clearer but I'll try. If "His luxury homes" doesn't appear in the article it can't appear in the lead because it is unsourced OR.Momento (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not unsourced OR:

• He has a sprawling $80,000 split-level house here, plus homes in Los Angeles and India. There are two Mercedes- Benz automobiles for use in the U.S. and two airplanes. In London, his followers have given him a Rolls-Royce. Queried about this opulence, he asks whether he is supposed lo throw away gifts the mission accepts in his name.
• The guru's "Divine Residence" in London is worth $125,000 and is only one of his many homes around the world.
• Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces.
• Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary.
• In his first three years in the United States, new converts were common and their contributions led to the Maharaj Ji's homes in three states, a fleet of cars, a wardrobe of flashy clothes and two airplanes. Followers are encouraged to live in ashrams, communal houses where the virtures of celibacy, poverty and meditation are practiced. "If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce, they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them," the guru once said in defense of his worldly goods.
• The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California.
• Things haven't gone so well for the guru in the last 20 years, though success is relative. He didn't bring the world peace, as he promised, but at last report he was living in a Malibu mansion valued at $15 million, with other homes in England, New Delhi, Rome, Madrid and who knows where else; driving his choice of a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, a Ferrari or a garageful of other expensive cars; jetting around the planet on a $25 million Lear jet; or sailing on his $3 million yacht.

So there are seven sources that talk about homes in the plural. Not OR at all.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here. We are reporting what the media wrote about; this is what they wrote about. The sentence "His luxury homes and automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention." is an improvement on what's in the proposal now.

I agree with Momento that there should be material on more recent decades in the lead. How about:

The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained the support of his followers outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. In 1983 Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by a more secular Elan Vital.

Rawat has continued to tour almost constantly, piloting himself to as many as 100 speaking engagements a year, in more than 40 countries around the world. In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

I'll start a section on adherents.com below. --JN466 07:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, is it too much to ask for us to finish the 1970s material first?   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd be quite happy to do that. As far as I am concerned it can go in, and then we can focus on 1980-2010. --JN466 07:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To address Momento's point that there is nothing about multiple homes in the main article right now, I suggest expanding the sentence "Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts." with "as well as residences in multiple states and countries", citing relevant sources from among those you listed above. --JN466 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I know my opinion, as I have little to no knowledge, means very little, but I still think short and sweet is better than long and lengthy, if you understand what I mean. Steven Zhang 08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay to drop this in?

• I believe we do have consensus on the following:

  Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

• Can we drop that in? (It omits the residences, as these are not covered in the article yet.) --JN466 08:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not OK with me. Why should tabloid trivia like "automobiles" get a sentence of their own when relevant info by Rawat on the subject is ignored e.g. "Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world". If we've got room for a sentence, how about important info like "By the end of 1973, the DLM was active in 55 countries. Tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and dozens of ashrams formed". This is an article about what Rawat was doing not about the pathetic pre-occupations of journalists.Momento (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We do say that DLM became the fastest-growing NRM in the West. Mention of the cars is due; it was a major factor of his reception at the time. As for not abandoning the material world, the DLM did encourage premies to move into communal ashrams and make donations; premies were not encouraged to keep their money and buy homes and luxury cars from themselves. Many journalists remarked on what they saw as a contradiction between Rawat's lifestyle and that of premies, and it is a valid, very common outsider perspective articulated in our sources. --JN466 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We know the US press criticised Rawat in the early 70s, they made fun of his height, his weight, his teachings, his skin, his diet, his voice, his age, his name etc. It is entirely appropriate to say that "Rawat was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers". But to stretch this criticism over TWO sentences when we haven't enough space to tell readers how many followers Rawat actually had in this period is pathetic.Momento (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind inserting figures for his following in 1973. But note that your proposal for the luxury gifts ("and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers".) runs to 10 words, because you attach it to the same verb, "ridiculed", and mine to 13 ("His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention"). There is hardly a difference, and I think it is fair to say that he wasn't "ridiculed" for the luxury cars. All the other ad-hominem stuff you mention (he liked ice cream, his body shape etc.) I am not interested in. So, once more:

• Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

  Better? --JN466 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We're getting there. What happened to the homes?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento said earlier (06:17, 8 August 2010) that the multiple luxury residences were not mentioned in the main article and thus should not appear in the lead. Hence my earlier post suggesting we should mention them in the paragraph on his "affluent lifestyle". Re-checking just now, I see that we do in fact have the sentence, "Travelling almost constantly, he was reported to have residences in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia." That's not under the angle of affluent living though; it's more like an explanation of the practicalities of his travelling lifestyle – which is also a valid viewpoint. We could add the subclause about homes, as I suggested in my earlier post, and add the homes to the lead, or we could leave them out of the lead. I have no strong feelings either way. --JN466 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We can meet Momento's latest complaint by mentioning one home now, and then making it plural once we add the others to the body of the article. There's no question that the media gave attention to his multiple homes. That would give us: His luxury automobiles and Malibu estate, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I earlier proposed -... of Indian followers. (leave out "gained further prominence etc. as the next sentence covers it). At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah". DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". (END) "More like a king than a messiah" is an excellent phrase, it is in the article, in a few words it tells us how he lived (in palaces with servants) and it gets immediately to why he was criticised by the media (because they felt a "divine" person should live like an ascetic). By contrast the sentence "His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention" is clumsy, suggests there is some doubt as to whether they were gifts and doesn't tell us what the media thought - did they say "well known car fanatic Guru Maharaj ji has restored a 1955 Mercedes. It has green exterior and tan leather interior"? "I can't understand the objections to ""more like a king than a messiah".Momento (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is text added to the article by Momento that he's now also trying to put into the intro. The sentence in the source just prior is "People were hostile towards the guru." I'm not sure why we quote one line but not the other. In any case, the proposed language (His luxury automobiles and Malibu estate, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention) fairly summarizes what's in the article. I suggest that we should minimize the use of quotes in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Malibu Estate was not a gift. The DLM bought it, it served as the DLM's headquarters, and Rawat had a first-floor apartment in it. (From memory.) --JN466 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I could sign up to "for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences." Deal? --JN466 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could Jayen. But I can't because it is mindless redundancy and treats the readers as idiots. So maybe we should follow "Like a Messiah" with "you know like bare feet and robes". As for Will's comment that "this is text added to the article by Momento", who do you think put this badly written tabloid sentence into the article - "Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts". I especially like "and sports cars" as if "expensive automobiles" excluded "sports cars". Oh, naughty Prem Rawat has "SPORTS CARS". There is no reason to exclude "more like a king than a messiah" but there is a very good reason to avoid describing how a king might live because it treats readers as idiots. And by the way, the multiple residents are NOT the product of living like a king they are the result of "Travelling almost constantly, he was reported to have residences in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia", as explained in the article.Momento (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Jayen's text is acceptable. It includes the quote that Momento is supporting and it summarizes the material in the article. It is neutral and factual. It has no errors or policy violations. Can we agree on this so we can complete this long-running discussion?   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It may suit you Will to have this article treat readers like idiots but it is unacceptable to me. Apart from being patronising and redundant, the article doesn't suggest Rawat was ridiculed for having "multiple residences". If that the last of your objections Will. I propose we put in - ... of Indian followers. (leave out "gained further prominence etc. as the next sentence covers it). At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah". DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". (END)Momento (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Adherents.com

There is a discrepancy in the information on adherents.com. In the third column, it lists a following of "15,000" for the USA (published in 1990). In the ninth column, it says: ""General membership numbers appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. There is a core group of 3000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly". The "50,000" may be a transcription error made by those who generated the table, as it contradicts the 15,000 in column 3, and 3,000 + 12,000 = 15,000. The latter also is more in line with Geaves 2006, who speaks of a "hard core of about 2,000 European and North American followers". Does anyone have access to the Spencer/Keller source cited by adherents.com? --JN466 07:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Other sources:

• In 2000, a worldwide estimate of 335,000 was put forward ... 'more than 500,000 to this day have learned the techniques' (the latter is a quote by Elan Vital).
• "Outside of India, at the time of this writing, Elan Vital claims some seventy-five thousand followers in the rest of the world" (2001) --JN466 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the DLM or Elan Vital. Detailed estimates of the sized of those movements belong in their respective articles. Anyway, this is another topic that we've already discussed at length. Is there any new information since 2008? Can we wait to discuss this again until we've settled the other pending issues?   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento proposes quoting the 1.2m/50,000 figures, which are currently in the article, in the second part of the lead, and I think these figures may be problematic (i.e. too high). I'm happy to defer this until we have the 70s section of the lead sorted though. --JN466 08:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the previous discussions:

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Full-time membership of German premies
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 38#"Following", "students" and "former followers" sections

That's for the record. Meantime, let's focus finding a consensus about the 1970s material that we've been discussing for a while already.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

References

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles on probation