Talk:Prem Rawat

Momento is banned from editing the Prem Rawat article, for a period ending 20 April 2010.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Prem Rawat article and associated talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by {{{4|MBisanz talk 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

Rumiton is banned from editing the Prem Rawat article, for a period ending 20 April 2010.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Prem Rawat article and associated talk page Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by {{{4|MBisanz talk 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

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.

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

• 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) (Archive 40)

Neutral Lede

Given the entirely circular nature of recent discussion, I propose to reduce the lede (which is profoundly unwieldy in any case) to the single consensus approved first paragraph. If, once the body of the article has has been rigorously assessed and re-edited, it is felt that the lede needs to be larger, content can added to the lede at that time.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

which is where/what now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear - I mean't the first six lines as they currently appear as the first paragraph to article. I've taken the liberty of introducing a double paragraph gap after the first paragraph to make it easier to distinguish. I'm simply proposing to delete the rest of the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What's so bad about the lede, now that the cult thingy is gone?--Rainer P. (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wiki Manual of Style before making unrealistic proposals. It just wastes everyone's time. The lead must give a broad outline to the life of Prem Rawat. Proposing to stop his life at the age of 13 in the lead is totally ridiculous. Please study Wiki Manual of Style, Thanks Terry Macro (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been discussed over and over and over, and has been edited extensively. I wouldn't recommend making any singicant changes to it without good reasons and a fresh discussion.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. When I realized that Maelefique had gone ahead with a significant change before we had reached explicit consensus on the discussion page, I guessed that we would shortly end up back in a similar situation to which we unfortunately have. The lessons clearly learned from last year's mediation are that to enable a successful or 'sticky' change, there needs to be:

• a) an explicit statement of consensus (nothing more than 'I don't like it but I can live with it' is fine) from those involved in the discussions and

  b) a clear, reasoned audit trail back to the source material, combined with a) above, as justification for the change.

I also remind participants that Wikipedia is not a democracy. What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Trying to force through a change based on numbers hasn't worked. If there are a few hold-outs, then the fall back is to challenge them to fault the reasoning that has been used to gain the consensus.--Savlonn (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We now have a sentence which does not represent the source. Additionally there are artefacts of synthesis that create a wholly inaccurate presentation of the Divine Light Mission. There is one good paragraph, cutting back the rot to that 'sound wood' would be far more pragmatic than endless circling around whether or one may mention "cult" in the lede. However if that is what the consensus is for, then Will's formulation is needed to resolve the first sentence of the second paragraph and it doesn't matter how many time Rainier posits the contrary. As Will says 'cult' is in the article body, so there's no basis for not to be in the lede other than it fails the significance test, which in this case it certainly doesn't.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• just because the word 'cult' appears in the body does not mean it should be in the lede. The reference to cult in the body of the topic is marginal and therefore is not a significant aspect to be included in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly expand the reference in the article if that's the problem. There are no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader. It is a significant point of view. The fact that there is so little mention of the matter in the article is due entirely to the participation of three now-banned editors, each of whom were acknowledged followers. Perhaps the problem of editing by current and former employees of the subject hasn't been solved.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, if there is, as you say, „no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader“, why does the claim for „cult“ in the „media“-section of the article rely on two tabloids, and on two highly biased books written by professed evangelical Christians? However there is no lack of sources that describe the subject as “leader of the DLM”, “messenger of peace”, “guru” etc. From the “Times of India” 30.June 2005: “an internationally known Indian humanitarian leader and peace advocate” and “a humanitarian leader and s steadfast proponent of peace”. Are these not significant points of view? And the articles from Sicily. Why just pick out “cult leader”? That is one significant POV alright, but for neutrality’s sake it should be complemented by others, and this circumstance can be referred to in the lede, in any case it should reflect in the “media”-section.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, it just occured to me, concerning your above insinuation: I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the line to which you're referring, located in the Media reception section:

• Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, as well as anti-cult writings.

It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough. First, the existing line is just about how the subject has been referred to in the media. However the term "cult" has also been used by many scholars, so expanding it in this location would be inappropriate. Instead, I think that a sentence in one of the 1970s sections would be better, since that's when the term started being used, mentioning that the subject was described by scholars as part of the "cultic milieu" and included in both scholarly and journalistic lists of cults.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DLM is also referred to as a cult by Time magazine too. Or are we going to go back to Time being a tabloid as well? And since Rainer P. brought it up, I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject either. Who's next? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough" is incorrect. Only some of the editors here make the claim. "Time" does not satisfy as an adequate source for the bio of a living person. Most tabloid and glossy media promote the prejudices of their readers for circulation purposes. It is not Wiki's purpose to promote such prejudices. Terry Macro (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you were next! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to reflect all significant points of view that can be found in reliable sources, giving each their due weight. TIME is one of the oldest, most reputable, and largest circulation news magazines in the world. When it reports with an angle that is representative of the opinions of its readers it is an excellent source for the most commonly held views, the views to which we should give the greatest weight. TIME is hardly the only source for the term "cult". Dozens of those sources have been compiled at this page.   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What an amazing compilation, thank you! Still, reading (admittedly supereficially) through it, to me it seems that "cult" is not the dominant denomination, except perhaps in some mass media, but there are many many alternative terms. Again, I do see a reason for mentioning the "cult"-perception, but it should be properly balanced, perhaps put in context neutrally. And BTW I did not bring up this employee thing, but Will did. Personally I don't actually believe that current or former employees are active here.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizen's Freedom Foundation (CFF) and the original CAN referred to DLM as one of the "big four" new cults along with ISKCON, $cientology and Unification. Of course, the "big four" of the "old cults" were the Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. Curious that the "old cults" were criticized for doctrine while the "new cults" were criticized for using psychological practices. Wowest (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Time article is not a tabloid article because Time is not a tabloid. The article is sub-standard, tabloid-like journalism because it is written in breathless hyperbole, and includes baseless insinuation about tax irregularities ( If there really were any they would have been reported in this article, I'm sure.). I note also that it criticizes Rawat in hyperbolic language for allegedly exercising freedoms that all of us enjoy[[1]]. Stigmatization via the use of the term 'cult' in such substandard, tabloid-like articles has been criticized by scholars as I have pointed out previously. I fully agree with Terry Macro; It is not a reliable source on the subject and should not be included as a reference.

I also agree that 'cult' should not be used in the lede. It should not be necessary to restate yet again all of the reasons for that. And, in reply to Will, 'scholars' who use the term 'cult' were proponents of the anti-cult / deprogramming industry, e.g., Conway & $iegelman, and $inger. I see from Rainer P's post that the list also includes evangelical Christians. Due to their bias, such writers are not generally representative of main stream academics, sociologists mostly, who wrote about Rawat and the DLM in more measured, scholarly terms. Will has neglected to mention that fact.

I note also that Will deleted the definitions section from the list of sources[[2]]. In fact, the page is not merely a list. It includes quotes from the sources. The definitions are essential to understanding the terms used. I have reinstated the definitions. Here is an extract that is relevant to this discussion.

"Provided to offer context about the various ways in which the term "cult" and "sect" are used, which are being conflated in this list without providing such distinction. See also Cult and Sect...The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside of the mainstream of Western religion. Exactly which groups should be considered cults is a matter of disagreement amongt researchers in the cult phenomena, and considerable confusion exists. However, three definitions dominate the writings of social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anticultists. Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term."

BTW, The article history shows that an IP recently inserted expremie.org as a reference. Can someone confirm whether or not that site has been deemed not acceptable as a source? --Zanthorp (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Margaret Singer was an academic psychologist who was also a clinical psychologist. She had valid, reputable academic credentials, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have academic credentials. She was a published author, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have published books and material from both camps should be considered reliable sources. Singer was not a deprogramer (like Ted Patrick) and she shouldn't be characterized as such. This is what Singer said in 1979 about the term "cult." Btw, the term "anti-cult" was coined, I believe by CESNUR's Massimo Introvigne, who himself, has no credentials as a scholar of NRMs/cults. Rather, his area of expertise is in the legal realm. He's a patent attorney in Italy.

The term "cult" is always one of individual judgment. It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and practices just off the beat of traditional religions; to groups making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader. The people I have studied, however, come from groups in the last, narrow band of the spectrum: groups such as the Children of God, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Divine Light Mission, and the Church of Scientology. I have not had occasion to meet with members of the People's Temple founded by the late Reverend Jim Jones, who practiced what he preached about being prepared to commit murder and suicide, if necessary, in defense of the faith. -- Margaret Singer, Ph.D, 1979 Psychology Today. Singer stated in 1997 that her above article and writings from 1979 still apply in the current day. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the article from Time that Zanthorp is referring to, but it isn't the one I was referring to, my article talks about none of that. So I guess that's multiple issues/articles from Time, which still is NOT a tabloid, despite Terry Macro's attempt to paint it as one. I also think it's important to note that both scholarly sources as well as public media such as Time agree on the term cult. Zanthorp makes quite a few claims against the Time article, can you prove any of them with sources? There are in fact many references to his tax problems, so your "baseless insinuation" suggestion is just outright wrong. Your suggestion that Time is anything other than a reliable source is pretty hard to digest without facts to the contrary (and I could be wrong, but didn't we already take that question somewhere and have it confirmed as a reliable source? Or was that just the LA Times?). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME is a perfectly relaible source, and if folks want to challanege it we can go to the reliable sources noticeboard. However there are so many other sources available that I don't see the point of focusing on that single magazine. Zanthorp makes disparaging comments about some writers, but again, it's used by many scholars. Even Melton included the subject in his book The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America - notice the title.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, TIME is only a news magazine! No need to pretend it is faultless, when you have a chance to look at an issue after 35 years. You don't need sources to see an article is an embarrassing shot from the hip, that happens in news business inevitably sometimes. It does not really lessen Time's merits as a news mag, nobody expects it to be anything else. I think, a person who can't see the face evidence of this won't be able to profit much from any source. Even science makes mistakes, but is at least obliged to keep up with reality. Only the pope claims infallibility.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with TIME. It's clearly reliable and if folks wish to argue otherwise I suggest they seek input from the relaible sources noticeboard. But regardless of what is written in TIME there are numerous other sources. If complaints about TIME as a reliable source is the only argument then I'm going to add the proposed text to the lead.  Will Beback  talk  22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the bio of living person needs extra care for the quality of citations, and TIME does not fulfil this criteria Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call consensus?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think what Will is saying is that your argument is so preposterous that if that is the only reason you oppose the proposed text, then there really is no legitimate opposition to its addition. Also, it's too bad Jossi isn't here (well, actually... anyways, I digress), he'd be the first to tell you, it is not what's true, or false, or reality, or infallibility, it is what can be proved with reliable sources (like Time). Also, if you're only going to accept the pope as a reliable source, we aren't going to make a lot of progress on this article if we need your approval. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your basis for opposing it? Just saying "I don't like it" isn't enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to see if anyone had ever questioned whether TIME is a reliable source at the noticebaord. The most recent and relevant discussion is here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Christopher Hitchens, "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as RS. Longtime editor and respected admin Nandesuka wrote:

• It's unquestionable that both the Washington Post and Time magazine are reliable sources. To argue otherwise borders on the absurd.

If folks want to keep arguing that it isn't reliable then we can post a new thread asking about it, but the repeated assertion is bordering on tendentiousness.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying that Time is unreliable, It has a very high reputation for being the most reliable of the news mags, I am aware of that, But it is not so extraordinary as to overwhelm all the other publications that don't describe DLM as a cult. In order to avoid undue weight, other RS must also be used. I take some from the page you have linked above:

"a religious movement" asndia Investigating Religious Movement By YRON L. BELKINDHindu, "Divine Light movement" = The Mini Guru By J. KING CRU February 3, 1973 THE STARS AND STRIPES Page 9; "spiritual leader" = he guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes; "spiritual leader" = Moritz, Charles, ed. Current Year Biography, 1974; " Indian sect" = Associated Press Writer Dec. 22, 1973; "new religious movement" = Psychological Reports, v.39.3 - Missoula- p.976 etc. etc. Therefore if the Time description "cult" is to be used so must many others. Of course that would bloat the lede unnecessarily, so I suggest to keep it the way it is now.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If Time were the only source that used the word it might be considered anomolous. But the term is used by many newspapers, magazines, and scholars. We already use "new religious movement", but that is just one of the terms used. Further, the DLM was not just a minor cult, it was included in every short list of cults, meaning that it was among the most prominent cults of the decade. If the assertion here is that a dozen sources are insufficeint, then the materials in the article with even fewer sources should probably be removed first.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we do have consensus that Time is a reliable source, and we have evidence of several other reliable sources referring to the DLM as a cult. There is also clear RS evidence that it has been referred to a NRM. This leads us back to the recent proposal of including both terms in the Lede, unless there is a very strong reason to argue that this is not a neutral reflection of the source descriptions. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The remaining arguments that I've seen against using the word cult are:

a) If we use 'cult', then we must also use all the other terms used. This argument is almost directly contrary to the purpose of a summary lede. The lede should ideally use the single most reflective terminology, or occasionally two terms where a single term can't be agreed. In this case, it is clear that NRM and Cult are the only two qualifying terms for the lede.

b) The meaning of the term 'cult' has changed to become more derogatory since the 1970s, and as such shouldn't be used. As the cult article and many people here have pointed out, the term has several meanings, only some of which are grossly derogatory. The use of the NRM term, combined with the context of article text (strong emphasis on peace, meditation practice, etc.) removes any possibility of association with David Koresh, Jim Jones et.al. It is also very important to note that according to reliable sources the DLM was very much associated with most of the definitions of the term 'Cult' and in fact was a cult.

c) The media has used the term 'cult' in such a biased and unfair way that the use of the term is now unfair and shouldn't be used. This is almost an appeal to apply original research. As a general point, regardless of the merits of this argument, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to actively change the way language is used, or to apply 'political correctness'. We must passively reflect current usage of language as it is used. Terms like should be used or shouldn't be used must be a red flag for us when they imply that we should be actively changing normal, current usage because of subjective reasons. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are any additional arguments to not include the word 'cult' in the lede, could you add them in bullet point form below, so that we have a tangible list of points to consider for reaching consensus? --Savlonn (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- Cult is a difficult definition with competing meanings. The definition of cult for a scholar, is not the same as the definition used by the Christian counter-cult, or the one used by the secular counter-cult. Thus, using a reference to "cult" in the lede, conflates all these competing meanings making the statement useless and not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, you have managed to create a self-referencing meta-paradox, according to your own reasoning. You have argued that the definition is different, depending on the groups you have claimed as responsible for defining these differing definitions, but have actually applied the term itself within your definition of the groups responsible for defining the term! Douglas Hofstadter would be impressed! (see Gödel,_Escher,_Bach) Therefore, by your own reasoning, you are arguing that the terms 'Christian count-cult' and 'secular counter-cult' are meaningless. As you can see, I could continue along this paradoxical path for a quite some time, but hopefully you see my point. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many more terms by which this movement was described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#Reception, so it seems biased to pick and choose just one, in particular the one that is the less neutral of the bunch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

1) I agree with you about the 'pick and choose just one' argument, as New Relgious Movement is used almost as commonly as 'Cult' to describe the DLM, and as such my preference is to use both, but in a way that accurately reflects 'Cult' as the most widely used and commonly understood term at the time the majority of the source material was written.

2) re: "the one that is the less neutral of the bunch." It is our responsibility to ensure that a neutral overall article is written. This does not mean using polite phrases and terminology throughout the article, but reflecting accurately and without bias the source material that is used for the biography. I assume by 'neutral term' you mean one that is least controversial or negative. That would not be an accurate historical reflection of the subject or source material, and thus would deviate from overall neutrality of the article. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many religious leaders included in scholarly books and encyclopedias related to the studies of "cults" (in the scholarly meaning), and yet these are not described as cults in their articles. One notable example is Sun_Myung_Moon, who has been described as a cult leader in many more sources, and yet there is no mention of it in the lede, probably for the similar reasons argued above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough about Sun Myung Moon to be qualified to respond to your specific example, though a brief read of his biography indicates much broader notability in terms of timeframe and scope than Pram Rawat, whose primary notability was that of a 1970s Cult Leader. My point is that you can't apply generalisation as an argument for the appropriate usage of terminology, as it will depend completely on the unique circumstances of each biography. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, 190.246.3.141 is probably a blocked editor who is very familiar with the texts in question, having written some of them. Further edits by blocked or banned users will be reverted.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not know if the anonymous editor was a blocked editor, not that this statement disagrees with the reversion of their edit in this instance. You cannot make up Wiki rules on the fly to suit your purposes. Edits by anonymous editors cannot be summarily reversed unless this becomes Wiki policy. Terry Macro (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by banned editors may be reverted by any editor, and editing to evade a block is also forbidden. I've requested an investigation and will report back.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It did seem a little curious that someone new was suddenly participating without signing their comments. Thanks for the heads-up. On a related note, they refer to the Sun Myung Moon article, which has an entire section dedicated to the "cult" status of the Uniication Church, I wonder how that anonymous editor would feel about us leaving cult out of the lead, but dedicating paragraphs and a section heading to it instead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Stating that DLM was a cult places undue weight on this perspective. It is original research for Savlon or WB to claim "cult" is a more popular term (not to say accurate term) than sect or religion or church without providing some statistics to back it up. For example as a bit of trivia, if you pair various words including "cult" with DLM in Google, it shows that "cult" is less often found with Divine Light Mission than these other words such as church, religion, religious movement etc. Therefore how can any editor state to the effect that in the lede DLM should be described as a cult based on popular sources. Can any editor show how this demonstrates a NPOV? Any inclusion of "cult" in the lede must be based on objective reason(s) that support NPOV. Terry Macro (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The proposal isn't to state that the DLM was a cult. The propsoal is to say that it was included in lists of cults. That is NPOV and accurate.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Will. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV depends upon the context. If it is to be stated that DLM is included in a list of cults (provided adequate references are available) then other claims that have greater weight will also have to be included such as along the line "Rawat has often been termed a guru, master, teacher, humanitarian and speaker in the popular press". Terry Macro (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Let's add the most important terms used to describe the man and his movement, as represented in reliable 3rd-party sources. We certainly have enough to add the propsoed text, and there may be enough to add other terms as well. "Sect" is another frequent one. I think we should keep the list short, using opnly the most common terms.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with this suggestion. I'll repeat the link to the reception section of DLM Divine_Light_Mission#Reception as the first sentence in particular provides sourced references to descriptions used for the DLM. I realise this refers to the movement and not the subject, but it is a starting point. --Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It was called a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, an offshoot of Sant Mat, an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,, a youth religion, a Radhasoami offshoot, an orthodox Sikh community, an Advait Mat related tradition, a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"), and a defunct religious movement.--Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't want that whole list in the intro. Some of those are very obscure usages. The first three might be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

yep - just to be clear, I pasted that list purely as a basis for discussion; it certainly doesn't represent my opinion of what we should put in the lede. As I mentioned earlier, I personally prefer just the two terms previously discussed in order to ensure that lede remains a summary and doesn't bloat. However, I am willing to compromise for the sake of consensus, and if this means including additional terms, then so be it. --Savlonn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will (did I really just say this?...)--Rainer P. (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not to get stuck on Time again, but they also refer to DLM as one of the big 4 cults of the 70's. Adequate references will certainly not be a problem. Seems a little like having to find sources before stating Prem is alive though...and wouldn't wanna be anyone's hatchet man, so I agree with Cla68 instead. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Terry's proposal. (And sorry for the hatchet man, Maelefique. This somehow happens, when I edit in the dark of night, being too busy at daytime...please accept my apology.)--Rainer P. (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, when you try what Terry indicated above, here are Google search hits for pairs:

PR + "guru" 12,500; PR+ "Master" 9490; PR+ "teacher" 7220; PR+ "humanitarian" 6450; PR+ "speaker" 5150; PR+ "cult leader" 3180. Draw your own conclusions.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with actual sources, not Ghits which have all kinds of problems.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This might work: "In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing organizations of its kind in the US." --Zanthorp (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vague.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How about: The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms: a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and different other labels.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no indication that those are conflicting terms. I doubt there are many sources that called it a "charismatic religious sect", though "sect" is common, and there seems to be agreement on including it. I propose:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was called a "sect", was included in lists of cults, and was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.

The assertion that it was the fastest growing group is important to its notability and the notability of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For better flow, I suggest:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, which was referred to as a "sect" and included in lists of cults, was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.--Savlonn (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought of adding the characterisation of his movement as a "cult" or "sect" to the last part of the lede, listing criticisms of him? JN466 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the DLM was the fastest growing NRM in the US and UK is not a criticism, and it's easiest to combine them all. I don't think it much matters where in the intro it goes, but there's a logic to introducing the DLM early.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

David G. Bromley once said, Cult is a four-letter word for a religion you don't like. So while DLM being a fast-growing NRM wasn't criticism, calling it a cult was. JN466 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one viewpoint. However I'm not sure that there's a benefit to placing all criticims in one section or in one article. The current thinking on Wikipedia is that it's better to include criticism in the context of whatever is being discussed. So it would be suboptimal to discuss the DLM in one paragraph, and then add a criticism of it two paragraphs later. Further, the intro does have a someone chronological organization, so to the extent we can follow that the easier it is for readers.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely he was (and is) accused by his critics of being a cult leader. That seems to be a bit more prominent as a criticism than the lack of intellectual content in his discourses ... this article is about Rawat, not DLM. JN466 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit for splitting the characterization of the DLM with positive mentions in one place and negative mentions in another.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else, or shall we post this now?   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at JN's idea. Something like: Rawat has been criticized for being a cult leader, for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[8][13] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[6][14], and we can keep the fastest growing NMR, which is the way the source puts it, and we have the "cult" in a neutral perspective.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We have various sources for the DLM being called a cult, and even a few for Rawat/GMJ being called a "cult leader", but I'm not sure we have a single one that says "Rawat was criticized for being a cult leader". According to whom was this a criticism? Let's just report it in the simplest way possible, and let readers decide for themselves. The proposed text is neutral, verifiable, and relevant. We've already written a few thousand words discussing it. Let's bring this to a close.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already says that he was often termed a cult leader, and the lead should summarize the body of the article. I think something along the lines of Rainer's version would work. JN466 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets conclude this cult discussion. That the DLM was included in a list of cults is detail that belongs in the article, not the lede. Including the term in the lede would place undue weight on the use of the term.

I doubt that we have the resources to accurately document the use of various terms in all 'reliable sources', however, a quick check of of quotes from the list[[3]] gives these terms in addition to cult.

• a movement, a religious movement, new religious movement, peace movement: used at least 11 times
• peace movement, ex-youth movement and monolithic movement were also used.
• sect, Indian sect, mystical sect: used at least 5 times
• One writer also called it an Indian devotional group.

Here's a breakdown of Google search for the Divine Light Mission plus commonly used terms.

• Divine Light Mission + cult = 41,800
• + new religious movement = 51,600
• + movement = 90,300
• + religious movement = 68,000
• + sect = 89000
• + group = 147,000

The most commonly used term is group, almost 4 times the result for cult. Movement, at 90,300, including NRM and religious movement, accounts for well over double the results for cult. At 89,000, sect scored more than double the result for cult. The use of cult is outnumbered 8 to 1 by the use of alternative terms. Movement is generally a shorthand reference to NRM. The use of that term outnumbers the use of cult more than 2 to 1. Quite apart from the well documented issue of bias, there is no doubt that by using the term cult in the lede, we place undue weight on that term.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can counter Zanthorp's referral to a neutral view on the situation using Google search with some other third party neutral observation I agree that we should conclude this cult discussion in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghits are irrelevant in general and those are particularly useless. ["Divine Light Mission" "cult"] get about 5,180 hits while ["Divine Light Mission" "New religious movement"] gets just 640 hits. And ["Guru Maharaj Ji" cult] gets about 2,160 hits while ["Guru Maharaj Ji" "New religious movement"] gets only 137 hits. The problem is that Zanthorp forgot to put the search terms into quotation marks. But Ghits aren't sources. We have numerous solid sources that refer to the DLM as a cult. Moer sources than for most assertions in this article. The matter is directly relevant to the subject's notability, and hence it belongs in the lead. If we can't settle this then we'll have to escalate to another step in dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Using your suggested search method produces a very small number of very specific results that do not represent general usage of the terms under discussion. The same results are obtained by using advance search + this exact wording or phrase. It is the method that you advocate that produces useless results in this case, not mine. Here are some randomly selected examples. Using Divine Light Mission cult, we get...

• Research resources on religious cults, sects, and alternative religions - Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Divine Light Mission

• He came to the United States in the disco days of the 1970s and created a “cult” following he called the “Divine Light Mission

Using "Divine Light Mission cult", we get...

• Converted to Divine Light Mission cult and drifted away from activism into psychedelic mysticism over the course of 1972. Meanwhile participated in vvaw's ...

• He is also a devotee of Maharaji, the tubby guru who founded the Divine Light Mission cult in the 1970s and has since grown fat (literally ...

I also note that the search method you advocate produces the greatest number of crackpot results, like the one above for example.

Above you wrote, "The simple fact is that the subject's movement was widely characterized as a cult in both popular and scholarly sources." Unless you are willing to count the use of all relevant terms in all of the listed sources for this article, the google results I have quoted give you the best results available. Clearly, results show that the use of cult is at the bottom of the list. The simple fact is, and I put it to you again, that by including cult into the lede, you will be placing undue weight on the term. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghits may be one starting point if you have an idea and you'd like to see if it has any merit but on its own it certainly doesn't convince me of anything, especially given the fact that we have many scholarly (and don't forget Time! :) ) sources that refer to "cult". It's verifiable, backed by solid sources, relevant to the article, and should be in the lead. When are we making this edit? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As Will has demonstrated, search engine statistics (I've never seen the word Ghits before - I guess it is an abbreviation of 'Google hits'?) can be manipulated according to what you want to see, and also are very much squewed towards recent data (last 15 years or so) that is natively electronic. We can't do an accurate search for common use of words during the 1970s for instance.

In addition, as others have mentioned, such research is trumped by the documented usage of terms by reliable sources. The DLM being on the list of largest cults of the era is absolutly central to the notability of the subject, and by itself is a strong enough argument to be included in the lede. We've put a lot effort into creating a solid audit trail back to the reliable sources for this during the past few weeks, and I haven't seen any refutes strong enough challenge the solid case for having this in the lede. I must concur that if we can't reach consensus then a more formal approach to obtain resolution will be required. --Savlonn (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand your point about the subject's notability during the 1970's. Please take another look at the usage of terms in reliable sources from that era. You will see that they do not just refer to the DLM as a cult. Even the most rabid anti-cultists are just as likely to call it a sect, movement, religious movement, group, etc, in the same book or article. Neutral, scholarly sources generally avoid the most disparaging term, cult. For those reasons we cannot give undue weight to one term that just happens to be the most disparaging one. The undue weight problem requires that all commonly used terms be included in the lede. However we approach, this Ghits or no Ghits, we come up against the problem of undue weight. If we conflate multiple terms and use multiple sources, we run up against the WP:SYN problem (my thanks to Terry Macro for his explanation).

Please carefully consider all of these points. Also, please show me any other biography which lists in the lede all of the terms commonly used to describe an organization that the subject did not create. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The exclusive use of NRM in the lede is not a perfect solution. I think it is the most practical solution given that the term is neutral and is generally favored by neutral, scholarly sources, as Melton points out. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Melton who include the subject in "The Encyclopedic Handbok of Cults in America"? The idea that the subject was not involved in creating the DLM in the US or UK, and thus they are irrelevent to his notability, is a non-starter. He was the spiritual leader of the movement and everyone recognizes that. As a compromise, we could place the proposed sentence in a less prominent place than the beginning of the second paragraph. It could go in the middle of the same paragraph just as well.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a real-life, reputable encyclopedia article, about the same length as our lead, which simply refers to the DLM as a "religious movement" and, several times, a "movement". Here another one, again using "religious movement". Here a third, slightly longer than our lead, referring to it as a religious movement only. Here a fourth, much longer than our lead, referring to it as a "humanitarian organization" and "movement". Here a fifth, calling it a "movement". I have yet to find an encyclopedia article that actually uses the word "cult" for the DLM. Even if other editors find such an article, please let us be clear that preferring not to insert the word "cult" prominently in the lead of this encyclopedia article is actually a perfectly respectable and reasonable position to take, and an approach taken by multiple encyclopedia articles out there. JN466 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Link by link...

• First Link is a brief paragraph only. It may be about the same length as our lead, but is nowhere near the same length as our article, and wouldn't be expected to go into any kind of detail on the subject, and in fact has very little on the DLM in general.
• Second Link 3 sentences is a now a valid reference?! Also, from those 3, should we include "successor to the gods", or "provides his followers with the knowledge required to attain salvation", doesn't sound like a great source to me.
• Third Link Also briefly describes only the chronological history of the DLM, and doesn't deal with any kind of classification
• Fourth Link talks about him being a god, or even above "God", can we use this a source too? and it does refer to "cultic festivals", but the funniest part of this link, is the bibliography, oh look, it's Collier's Soul Rush! Give it up on Collier already please, she's been weighed and found wanting, more than once in these articles! Downton is also a source (Who I have no problem with), but so are self-published DLM brochures, yes, very NPOV article...oh wait, no it isn't!
• Fifth Link written by Melton, who also included DLM in his Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, so I guess that would remove him as someone who doesn't think it's a cult, whether he used the word in your link or not.

As far as I can see, none of these links take away from the legitimate sources that do refer to the DLM as a cult. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique's comments seem on point. The examples are substantially different from our effort here. Wikipedia has different standards and scope than these other sources. It's not too much to expect that we can do better tnan any other source, so seeking the lowest common denominator isn't a proper goal. Again, this proposal has a neutral point of view, it's verifiable, and it's relevant. As a compromise, I've suggested moving it to fomthe first sentence of the second paragraph to a lower part. Can we agree on that or do we need to take this 1/2 of a sentence to mediation/Rfc/etc?   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has greater flaws than this, so for the sake of work flow I would accept Will's attempt for the present. Perhaps the sentence could go after ...in over 80 countries.. Let's see what it looks like.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Let's move past this, and forward with fixing the greater flaws with this article. I'll post the proposed text in your suggested location, and we can mark this resolved.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added it at the end of the second paragraph, per Rainer's suggestion. I think we can mark this long thread "resolved". Whew!   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

and a "phew" from me. I trust that after this lengthy excercise that this will become 'sticky'. There are a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync, but right now that is a minor point compared to actually getting that sentence in there. I agree with others that there is still a lot of work to do, but this even more reason to leave this sentence be for now and move on. --Savlonn (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"whew/phew" seconded...thirded? Yay Editing-Team!, although I think I agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it right before "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded", but I think we can worry more about that later after we fix some of the other problems with the article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• By what right do you insert something that remained unresolved with three objecting editors. It is badly written, out of chronology, and was inserted hastily without notice on a contentious subject less than 24 hours after JN466 said not to insert it. No one objects to "cult" in the body of the article but it is undue weight in the lede. This article is about PR, not DLM. Please remove it until this discussion is resolved. Terry Macro (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It is not badly written. If you're unhappy with its placement within the paragraph, I'm sure we can discuss shifting it. It certainly was *not* added hastily and there definitely was notice above. Regarding the less than 24 hrs after Jayen466's baseless sources and request not to insert it, Who made Jayen466 the Arbiter for this article?(No offense intended Jayen) If you have something to refute, the relevant discussion is all above. Please be specific in your rebuttals. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, my thanks to JN466 for the well timed research showing how other encyclopedias avoid derogatory terms in favor of the neutral ones. To their credit, editors of those publications do not wallow in the same murky water as sub-standard journalists and a few religiously biased academics. Unfortunately, exercising the same editorial judgement here is called POV insertion.

Will's edit has compounded an existing undue weight problem[[4]] and introduced into the lede information that is not covered at all in the article. The lede is supposed to reflect the contents of the article[[5]]. Instead, Will's edit appears to reflect only the POV of anti-rawat editors.

• The word cult is found only in 1 brief sentence in the media section where undue weight is given to the term.
• Unless I have missed it, there is no mention at all in the article about the DLM being cult, a sect or an NRM. There were several other terms used concurrently in reliable sources, so undue weight is given to those terms in the lede, although NRM has by far the greatest credibility and is neutral.
• For these reasons, rather than improving the article, Will's edit has done the opposite.

A proposal: If editors wish to include information about the use of terms to describe the DLM, I propose that it be included in the media section, and that for brevity and neutrality an encompassing neutral term be used in the lede; group, movement, NRM, take your pick. Group and movement appear to be the most commonly used terms even in anti-cult writings.

I was disappointed to see that Will has gone ahead with this very poor edit prior to the conclusion of discussion. I am quite happy, though, to allow him a day or so to reconsider and self-revert. Hopefully we can then fix the undue weight problem, and add information about the use of terms to the media section. I hope that Will decides to act reasonably in this matter and that we can avert an edit war and conflict resolution. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of "due" versus "undue" weight often comes up. The best of way deciding how much weight to give something is by seeing how much weight it receives in secondary sources. In this case, the subject has been covered in numerous books and articles about cults. How many books or articles about philanthropy have mentioned him? How many books on peace? Yet we mention those aspects in the lead. Below, Terry Macro has suggest devoting even more weight to the TPRF in the intro, despite the lack of independent sources on the topic. So the weight issue doesn't hold water. The type of group that the subject led is a key part of its notability and his.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, using "anti-rawat editors" to describe people who don't agree with you only sets up an "us vs them" mentality. It is not helpful to solving issues, and it's also wrong. I don't consider myself anti-rawat, I agree with this edit (although its placement could be better I think), and don't support your point of view. Is that what "anti-rawat" means to you? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start this. Discussion was polarized long before I arrived here. OK, I accept that you do not consider yours anti-Rawat. I consider myself neutral. The problem is that compared to the anti-Rawat sentiment often expressed in these discussions, neutral might appear to be pro. Like it or not, that's the situation. I've known for a while that Wowest is a former follower and is actively involved in a group that opposes Rawat. He says so openly on his talk page. By following the links on Nik Wright2's talk page I just found out that he also has a history of anti-Rawat involvement. So let's not pretend that these discussions are devoid of anti-Rawat sentiment. Clearly, that is not the case. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we drop it. Everyone should remember that this topic is under special probation, and that personal attacks or incivility are not permitted. If folks feel the need to discuss the behavior of other editors then their user talk pages are better places for that.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Will is right, there is no benefit to Wikipedia in this kind of exchange. However if Zanthorpe believes he as evidence of POV pushing or other bad editor behaviour he should be explicit, and if necessary seek uninvolved admin intervention. Having a POV away from Wikipedia is no impediment to editing neutrally - and those of us who are honest about our identities cetainly shouldn't be penalised for not going the pseudonym route. And in case anyone is in doubt, I will only seek to edit on the basis of what Reliable Sources actually say. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the present passive construction of the sect/cult sentence is weasely. If we have it at all in the lede, I'd be in favour of including it in the last paragraph, among the criticism; otherwise the article appears to be endorsing and appropriating the POV that called the DLM a sect of cult. JN466 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, I think it's in the correct paragraph, just one or 2 sentences away from where it should be. Since it discusses a time, and the rest of the lead is chronological, it makes sense to keep with the chronology. Also, I don't agree that it should be added to the criticisms of Rawat, that seems awfully negative to me. "Cult" isn't necessarily a negative thing, but if we push it that way, we could certainly make it appear so, adding it to the section on criticisms seems like a step in that (wrong) direction. In my mind, it's not a criticism that he was often listed as a cult, it's just a fact. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall tone of the sentence is neutral. It presents three different descriptions of the DLM without endorsing any of them. I think the general idea that "criticism goes at the end" is something that we've all moved away from. Praise, criticism, and neutral descriptions are best placed chronologically wherever possible.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

JN446 has a valid point, and those recent edits to the lede / 1970s section were sensible. Moving those sentences to the 1970s section restored structural balance to the article. Either the 1970s or the media section is the right place for those 2 sentences. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, what 2 sentences are you referring to? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NEUTRAL LEDE WITH REVISED CHRONOLOGY

After all the to and fro discussion by the various editors wishing to improve this topic, I have taken the time to revise the lede in total including a more accurate chronology as follows:

"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 that 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 international prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West where the Divine Light Mission was considered one of the fastest growing new religious movements. When Rawat turned 16 he began to take a more active role in guiding DLM that had previously been managed by others. His marriage to a Westerner in 1975 divided his family and the movement with Rawat retaining control of DLM outside of India. He based himself in the US becoming a United States citizen in 1977 and continued to travel extensively to spread his message. In the early 1980s he abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable and disbanded the DLM which was succeeded by Elan Vital in 1983. In 2001 he established the Prem Rawat Foundation as a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message which is now available in over eighty countries.

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."

I think the above satisfies Wiki's requirment for a NPOV Terry Macro (talk)

The current lead is the product of extensive editing by numerous editors. Rather than an outright replacement, I recommend you make suggestions for individual edits to the existing lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this lead is much worse than what we are already working towards, and completely ignores our current discussion about the lead already in progress, as well as adding details that are just about completely irrelevant to his "importance" in general. I would strongly oppose rebuilding the lead using TerryMacro's draft as a starting point. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique, you are right, I have removed the unnotable material - looks good to me, thank you for your advice. Terry Macro (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looked good to you before too, I am still opposed since you only took half my advice, you continue to ignore our continuing discussion above. This version is not a good starting point. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

the problem with the above discussion is that it is so piecemeal, it is hard to get a handle on what exactly is going to be the full end result. Such a piecemeal approach could end up looking like a dog's breakfast. The above discussion was headed "Neutral Lede" which is what I have produced. Terry Macro (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The discusion above is focused on altering a single sentence. It's not piecemeal at all.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro's lede is a major improvement in style. It presents all of the information contained in the current lede without the abrupt, somewhat disjointed sentences that are the result of innumerable edits. Perhaps most importantly, it better reflects the contents of the article. I will post more about this later when I get more time. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro hasn't offered any reasons or explanations for the changes. One I notice is that the mention of the TPRF is much longer. I'm not aware of any formal relationship between the subject and the TPRF, which is a relatively obscure organization compared to the DLM or even EV. I don't think we should make the TPRF coverage any longer than it is already.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- :: You have to see the humour in the situation - what is the formal relationship between DLM, EV and PR in most or all instances? I doubt that PR was formally related in the legal sense to any of these organisations. With TPRF (The Prem Rawat Foundation)the organisation is at least directly named after the subject. The reference to TPRF is one sentence, and not a long sentence at that. I will have to do some research to see if your claim that TPRF is a relatively obscure organisation is correct. Anecdotally, from my exposure to members of the general public, both DLM and EV are extremely obsure organisations anyway and very few people have heard of either. If they were cults with people dancing naked around a fire on the full moon I am sure they would have become well known very quickly - however they probably would have increased their membership numbers significantly. Terry Macro (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revised Chronology - if (and it is necessary) the current chronology is to be revised, let's at least get it accurate. The Divine light Mission was not 'disbanded' (see discssion at Talk:Divine Light Mission) in the 1980s. A number of tertiary sources say it was disbanded yet this is at complete odds with unimpeachable primary sources - not least the England & Wales Charity Commission, which shows that the UK DLM was not closed until 1995 Charity Commission for England and Wales. Official Register [6]. IRS and Australian Gov. docs show that the DLMs in those countries were simply renamed Elan Vital. Verification not Truth may be the standard for Wikipedia, but we don't have to include patently false information just because some lazy Socioligists keep repeating a falsity.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A problem with primary sources is that they often don't give the whole picture. We have no way of telling from that site whether the DLM was active in any way during the 1980s and 1990s, beyond perhaps paying some maintenance fee to keep the name. At least one secondary source tells us that Mata Ji retained control over the DLM in the UK, but that Maharaj Ji's supporters controlled the DUO, which held the properties, IIRC. I suggest we deal with this in the DLM article first, and then bring over our best research to this article.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Status of The Charity Register. – The legal Status of a Charity in the UK (under both Scottish and English legal systems) is more formal than that in the US. A charity may be a corporation, though not necessarily so, however to operate with Charitable purpose an entity must by Law be registered as a Charity. Registration as a Charity requires that the entity continue to operate within its defined terms, Trustees must be in place and annual returns must be made. There is no option to ‘pay a maintenance fee’ to keep the name as there might be with a business registration (not that would apply anyway under UK business Law as related to Company Registration). So inclusion on the Register of Charities is unequivocally a statement of current activity, which is only terminated by dissolution, and as recorded on the Register. There can be no doubt the UK Divine Light Mission operated as a legal entity until 1995. Price, who you quote, is patently wrong in a number of instances. Mataji could never have been a trustee of a UK Charity as she did not have UK citizenship, DUO was never created as a UK charity, and all the reports about the Palace of Peace (a disused cinema) which was the only significant property the UK movement ever owned, all talk of it being owned by DLM. Price is worth quoting in terms of her own expertise, but that didn’t include an understanding of Charity Law !--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • - :Nik, so how would you propose it should read to take into account staggered close and renaming of some of the DLMs? I would not have thought it necessary to go into too much detail about DLM on the lede of the PR page as WB suggests, though whatever summarisation is stated about DLM etc should be correct as you have indicated. Terry Macro (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The failings in these articles come from inadequately addressing the sources, and we have numerous competing sources dealing with the DLM to evaluate to editors satisfaction, so I don’t think rewriting the lede of the PR article is the way forward in sorting out the DLM mess, as Will says the DLM article is the place to start. But then this was my reasoning for cutting the current PR lede down to just the first paragraph as it stands. Perhaps other editors could live with the second paragraph being cut to all but the first sentence as it stands (with the cult/NRM issue resoved), plus the two final sentences of the lede. The lede could then be augmented once the DLM article and relevant section(s) of the PR article has been resolved.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nik, I fully agree with you about this point. "Verification not Truth may be the standard for Wikipedia, but we don't have to include patently false information just because some lazy Socioligists keep repeating a falsity." Also thanks for your research into the charity register and related issues. About the lede, generally I think it would be better to follow guidelines. The lede should give an overview of the article. Unfortunately, Will's edit to the lede has compounded an existing undue weight problem, and the cult/NRM issue is no closer to resolution than it was a week ago. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread to discuss the DLM in UK at Talk:Divine Light Mission#End of DLM in UK.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of edit

I've still got this article on my watchlist, and this popped up. Now, I compared the difference in my sandbox, and I can't see one. Is this just asn issue of where the content is in the article, or is there something I'm missing? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the disagreement is over where that content should go. IMO, for structural balance it should go in either the 1970s section or the media section. As I understand it, the lede is supposed to reflect the most important content in the article. This stuff does not even appear in the article, so why clutter up the lede with it? I have previously asked if anyone can show me any other BLP that lists in the lede the terms used to describe a defunct organization that the subject did not create. Nobody seems to be listening. its like talking to a frigging brick wall here. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, if it's being put into the lead section of the article, it probably doesn't belong there, as lead sections serve to give the reader an overview of the article, and not to serve as an "ad space", a space where contributors to the article can post things there that they want readers to see first. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this topic is about PR, not DLM - a defunct organisation at that. Terry Macro (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission in the U.S. is not defunct. The name was changed, but it's the same corporation that incorporated in the early 70s. DLM filed a name-change in 1983 (to Elan Vital) with the Secretary of State of Colorado in 1983. Btw, the Secretary of State departments in all of the U.S. states are where all corporations, whether for-profit or non-profit, file/register their legal incorporations, as well as any changes in their status, including name changes. Therefore, based on Colorado state records, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital U.S. are one and the same non-profit corporation. Therefore, Elan Vital, formerly called DLM, is still an active corporation in the U.S. with it's "home" state being Colorado to this day. It's also incorporated in Florida and California as "foreign corporations," thusly designated because DLM's original incorporation was in Colorado. Because the U.S. is primarily where Prem Rawat gained his fame when he first came to western countries, mentioning DLM is proper for purposes of this discussion, because it was during the DLM hay day that Rawat gained his notability. Hope this helps to explain. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, even if DLM were defunct, it still would be appropriate to have it in the lede becaase this is the biography of Prem Rawat's life, and that includes all the years, not just the years after the DLM name changes. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prem_Rawat_3 JN466 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• • See also [7] for (unfortunately) equally relevant issues.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• The reason for including reference to the organisation(s) in the lede is because this is essential to establishing the subject's notability - no organisation = no notability. As to the claim of being defunct, not only is that irrelevant to the history, (the organisation was functioning at the time relevant to the article subject becoming notable and again no organisation = no notability would apply)but there is ample evidence that organisations once named as DLM are the same oranisations now functioning under the name Elan Vital. Given Terry Macro has a potential COI in this, his claim of defunct status seems somewhat questionable. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UT

In my understanding a COI can only exist, when an editor ist presently on the article subject's payroll, or presently carries functions in their organisations. Former involvement may condition a POV, which is not unusual or an obstacle for editing here, I agree with Terry. No? Are you wishing to discuss your involvement on the anti-Rawat talkpages? Everybody here has a POV. Most unconscious and dangerous to quality are those who believe they don't.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. See the points made by Maelefique on Terrymacro's talkpage. The more substantive point here, is that Terrymacro claims on his talkpage that he did not know about the DLM history till he read the referenced material I provided here and on the DLM page, then he claims here that despite that referenced material, DLM is defunct. He can't have it both ways. Were DLM organisations renamed Elan Vital, or were they disbanded ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to that discussion on Terrymacro's talk page, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing? Thanks, JN466 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep discussions of individual editors off this page.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Elan Vital / DLM: I would like to determine if EV is a corporation in any real sense of the word, and whether or not the current organization is comparable to the 1970s DLM in any real sense. In the 1970s the DLM occupied 4 floors of a building in Denver and apparently had branch offices in other locations. Now, there is no phone listing for EV in Denver or any of about 20 other major US cities I checked apart from an office at Agoura Hills, CA. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Many organizations go through major changes, including their size and HQ location. Legally, the DLM and EV are the same organization, at least in the US and Australia.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Beback, I would like to point out that the only thing that didn't change was Mr. Rawat as the leader of both organizations. I was there during the changeover, since I received Knowledge in an ashram in 1982 and they were closed shortly afterwards. Not only did M disband the ashrams and indicate that DLM was no longer in business, he told everyone to throw away all of their DLM material. Now this material was very precious to many people but they threw away years worth of Divine Times magazines and other assorted magazines and newspapers that DLM had published over the years simply because M asked them to do so. Would he have done so if EV was just a "name change" from DLM? I don't think so. Even Ms. SilvieCynthia can vouch for that. Not only were the ashrams closed and the magazines thrown away, but Mr. Rawat made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was making EV free of almost all of the Hindu concepts, terminology and claptrap that accompanied his Father's original DLM as it came to the West. He wanted this new organization to break free from DLM and in my opinion, DLM and EV are completely separate entities. DLM represented his Father's work and his initial foray out into the world. EV was his determined effort to close that chapter down and start a new dispensation of his work and message. I don't know the legalities involved but in my mind and in the minds of most people involved, DLM and EV are not the same animal except for M.Gadadhara (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting input Gadadhara, but I think that you would be hard pressed to find a valid source we could use for the this article that refutes the EV/DLM legal documents that state it is only a name change. Whether it felt that way or not. Unfortunately, sometimes here at Wikipedia we are bound by a few concepts that, while usually very prudent, can take a view of events that not everyone agrees with, you may want to look over WP:COS, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and probably WP:PSTS for a clearer understanding of the issues you raise here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sir or Madam Maelefique, I will press hard to find a valid source if that is deemed necessary. I was simply talking about my own experience. Shortly before I received Knowledge in May of 1982, the guy who introduced me to M gave me all of his old DLM mags. They were precious to him and I was puzzled why he would do so but found out about M asking everyone to destroy them. I am simply saying that DLM and EV are different organizations IMHO. You sound like an expert on this subject. Have you received the gift of Knowledge from M? If so and you were around back in those days, you must know that the transition from DLM to EV was not simply a name change. So, what's your interest here? Have you received the 4 techniques of Knowledge? Do you have an agenda here or are you simply a "fair and impartial" editor who is concerned about this topic even though you don't have the Knowledge? Gadadhara (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear, it is definitely deemed necessary to find a valid source for your assertions, again I would urge you to read the links I have listed for you, they are basic to all Wikipedia articles, and particularly applicable to this group of articles. While I am interested to hear about your own experience with DLM/EV, without valid sources, none of this information can be used, or even considered towards the text of the article. I can appreciate that your opinion is that the two organizations are different, but given what I just said, I'm sure you can see why that's not too relevant to the project here. I am not an expert on the subject and I have not recieved Knowledge, I am just a historian who has a serious problem with revisionist history, but with no ties to Prem Rawat whatsoever."Fair and impartial" around here seems to vary in opinion from editor to editor, so I would suggest the simplest thing to do would be read the talk pages, and decide for yourself who has an agenda, and who is "fair and impartial".-- Maelefique ^(talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will take you at your word that you are not an expert on the subject and have not received Knowledge and are simply an historian who has a serious problem with revisionist history but with no ties to Prem Rawat. You have responded to 2 of my posts so far (that I posted and addressed to other people, not you) and I see you posting all over the place on this article about Prem Rawat. I am trying to grasp why it is so important to you that you would spend all this time responding to me and others here making sure that EV is called a "cult" in the lede and that EV and DLM are linked together as the same organization. You do this simply because you don't like "revisionist" history? My goodness, aren't there many other more worthwhile topics that you could be involved with where you do know something and can prevent revisionist history where it might make a difference? After all, this is simply a minor teacher of meditation who is offering people a way to go within and experience the life force. If someone could benefit from learning about how to experience a little peace in their lives but decide not to investigate it because you (who know nothing about the topic) succeeded in getting it labeled as a "cult" because you (who don't know about the topic) decided that it was "revisionist" to not label it as a "cult", would that make you happy? Am I missing something here, Sir? This is not an important topic to you? Seems to me that you are spending an inordinate amount of time on a topic that you know nothing about. How do you decide what is revisionist or not? Gadadhara (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This page is solely for the discussion about the article it is associated with, it's not the place to have a conversation about me (unless it's directly relevant to the article, such as Terry's "possible" COI). If you would like to continue this further feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I do not want to distract from the work being done here, I thought I was helping a new editor find his way around, but it looks like that's not what you are after now. If you took my replies as anything other than attempts at being helpful to a new editor I'll just add that that was not my intent. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, do you realize what you have done? You have posted a link here to direct readers Terry M's talk page where you and Will Beback have harassed him over his involvement 25 to 30 years ago with the DLM, and a directorship (unpaid ?) which ended 9 years ago. And on that page you have posted a link to an anti-Rawat smear campaign web page, "Rawatsucks", which lists what you claim is Terry M's real name and other information. This appears under "...a court writ information on the Company file is a powerful indicator of increased risk" and "Principal Activity: fuck all." According to the bio that Will linked to, Terry M's involvement with anything related to the Elan Vital ended 9 years ago. You have merely demonstrated that there is no reason for him to declare a COI because there isn't one. In the process you have revealed personal information about him, harassed him and used an anti-Rawat web site to smear his reputation. Until today I had some respect for you. Right now I have none! Your activities here are unacceptable. This is not what Wikipedia is about. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep discussions of individual editors off this page. If you wish to pursue this matter it's a topic at WP:COIN#User:Terrymacro.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that for the time being, discussion on this page ceases, and we wait until mediation commences? That might be for the best. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal

I think that the time has come to move to more formal mediation around this, moderated by uninvolved third party(s) as it is obvious that there is still dispute. I believe that a request along this lines has been made in arbitration enforcement. I would be willing to support a roll back of the changes to the version of two weeks ago, subject to agreement to mediation for resolution, and agreement that the initial focus will be on the changes made to the lede. What I wouldn't want to see is all the recent work being wasted by having to wait for several months for a full scale review/re-write or the entire article before solving the current issue. --Savlonn (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new section for this proposal, if that is not acceptable please revert. I agree with Savalonn's reasoning, at present this is going nowhere and there needs to be process which forces discussion to be fixed to referenced material.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mediation appears necessary.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Mediation is necessary. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to think about this overnight before I really decided I'd put my hand up, and offer to help out. Now, I realise that my performance as a mediator last year left a lot to be desired, and the incident that happened just after the mediation ended hasn't helped either. That said, I've learnt a lot from my past mistakes. I've developed a more effective method of mediation that I think, this time around, would work well, and no-one really knows this subject matter better, in terms of getting up to speed with the situation, and how to resolve it, than I do, so I'd like to offer to mediate here. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the next step is to get a mediation request filed, to first establish buy-in from participants, then agreement on the moderator(s) would be part of that process. I would prefer for someone else to file the request, as I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia bureaucracy :-). Jayen and Will immediately come to mind as Wikipedia experts who could file a mediation request in their sleep.--Savlonn (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, conventionally, the parties normally can't pick and choose between mediators, generally because there's such an extreme shortage of active, willing mediators, so it's somewhat a "get what you can" thing. However, this isn't a normal dispute, and it will probably be a long one, so I would advise that there should be some discussion on who the mediator should be. If that's me, then great, I'll help you all out. If not, thats alright too, and I'd be happy to assist someone else. That said, I'm not too sure how many would be willing to mediate this case, given the nature of the dispute, but I'm sure I could find someone. As for who would file it, I'm sure someone will. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem Rawat   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I support a request for mediation however I also propose that this topic be protected in its current form until the mediation process is complete. Terry Macro (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That probably won't be required, ground rules can cover that. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Open

• Unsure if everyone is aware yet, but the mediation case has been opened. The case page can be found here. I've asked for an agreement to ground rules. Once everyone has agreed to the ground rules, we can proceed from there. A concise list of issues to be addressed is required. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a list of issues at present. There is a long list of issues left over from the previous mediation but most of those were added by now-banned editors so they are essentially moot. While most mediations are intended to resolve specific issues and then end, perhaps a better way of handling this mediation would be to put in place procedures to handle individual disputes as they arise.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I considered this rather carefully and I think the best course of action would be to compile a list of current issues that need addressing, and address them. Once that's done, and the MedCab case is closed, I can implement long term meausres, such as long term mediation. Oh, and I'm still waiting for an agreememnt to the ground rules. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, did you mean you want list elements posted here ? In case its what you intended these are the three aspects that seem to me to be holding up progress on this page:

• 1. The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
• 2. The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
• 3. The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that might help somewhat, but I was looking for something that somewhat resembled this. If that makes sense. Obviously, they would need to be elaborated on. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should put this on hold until there is a clear list of disputes in need of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

. We don't need to address everything at once, but a list of some issues to start with would help. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's no list of things that are currently disputed then a model of mediation focused on such a list can't succeed. I mean, I can sit and think of things that can be improved, and which might or might not generate controversy, but there don't seem to be any raging disputes at the moment. So either we can think of about having a mediation scheme in place for when dispute (inevitably) arise, or just wait until that time comes. I don't see any benefit to locking down every related article, beyond the strict rules of the ArbCom, just so we can spend two months and 50,000 words debating the nature of Rawat's relationship to his movement or some other abstract concept. Maybe someone else can think of a concrete issue to discuss.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a long term mediation solution would be something that I'd discuss amongst DR experts. I'd imagine it would involve long term monitoring of the situation, and informal mediation (such as on talk pages) discussing the issues and resolving them. Other methods may also be used, as well as possibly a new form of dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Long term mediation perhaps) might be created. I've still got to think it over. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Will has made an important point, and to be clear I was specifically 'abstract' in identifying 'three areas' because although these are undoubtedly 'areas of dispute', there has been a distinct lack of reference based argument from some editors, which has left the whole dispute as an abstraction. A non abstract starting point may be the problem arising from having definitive primary sources (see refs this page and Notes on the DLM talk page = Colorado Secretary of State and Charity Commission) which contradict all (to use Jayen's phrase) all the established literature. Jayen insists the literature is unimpeachable, whilst I consider it untenable insofar as none of the authors address definitve historic records regarding the creation (or not) and renaming (or not) of legal entities. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that we really need a focus on rigor around a) a clear reference back to reliable sources for points that are being debated and b) agreement on reliable sources to use. On the first point, it would be good for the mediator to actively steer the debates towards providing tangible references when we we start spinning our wheels again on what should and shouldn't be included. On the second point, I suggest that we reference the good work that was done during last year's mediation, rather than start from scratch; for example, regarding the suitability of Andrea Cagan as a quotable source. Perhaps we could pull out a summary table of agreed reliable sources from last year's mediation and re-validate consensus as a starting point? --Savlonn (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of specific areas of dispute to be actively mediated, I nominate the current point of contention around the terminology used in the lede to describe the DLM and Prem Rawat; specifically the use of the term 'cult'.

At this point I suggest this discussion should be moved to the mediation page - Steve, what do you think? --Savlonn (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but first, all the parties will need to agree to the ground rules, and then I'll ask for opening statements. We will proceed with the mediation after that. This is a complex dispute, and as I have learned from the past, it's best not to rush into this. There is no deadline here, and I think it best if we approach this dispute, the second time around, in a methodical way. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik wrote, Jayen insists the literature is unimpeachable, whilst I consider it untenable insofar as none of the authors address definitive historic records regarding the creation (or not) and renaming (or not) of legal entities. If none of the authors address it, then neither should we, as per WP:DUE, which is a key part of WP:NPOV, which is policy. Due weight of facts and opinions in Wikipedia is established by secondary sources, not by Wikipedians. Recall also that Nik is a Wikipedian with an acknowledged history of bitter personal feuding with Rawat's organisation outside Wikipedia, a conflict that has gone on for many years.

Arbcom gave us clear ground rules here:

• 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, or political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• 2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• 3) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nik's reasoning is out of step with that. Our job is to mirror the literature. I propose whatever page we have our mediated discussions on, we should nail a board listing the arbcom principles above the door. --JN466 17:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I think you need to take a few deep breaths, your over excitement is taking you well off track. I have never feuded, bitter or otherwise, with any organisation anywhere. The link you give concerns discussion about the use of a document that was located on a website described by a WP admin, who is now an ArbCom member, as being 'an attack site'. Is it really your contention that my challenging the use of a document on Wikipedia (it's use was introduced and was supported by an individual who have since been banned from Wikiedia) is representative of my being involved in a 'bitter feud' ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have filed an amendment request at RFAR, in the spirit of mediation, asking that discussions that take place in this mediation will be priveliged, and cannot be used as evidence against other editors in other forms of dispute resolution. I believe that this will allow freer discussion, where you can speak your mind, without fear of retribution. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)