Will Beback (talk | contribs) →Draft 7: stick tot he topic, please |
→Draft 7: legitimate inclusions |
||
Line 415: | Line 415: | ||
::If this proposal is about his lifestyle then it needs to cover it all, not just money.[[User:Momento|Momento]] ([[User talk:Momento|talk]]) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
::If this proposal is about his lifestyle then it needs to cover it all, not just money.[[User:Momento|Momento]] ([[User talk:Momento|talk]]) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*"His message was spreading" is not about his lifestyle. "Introducing his wife to his followers" is more closely connected to his marriage than his lifestyle, and that's in a separate paragraph. "His relationship with the primies" is also unrelated (and not always so friendly). [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
*"His message was spreading" is not about his lifestyle. "Introducing his wife to his followers" is more closely connected to his marriage than his lifestyle, and that's in a separate paragraph. "His relationship with the primies" is also unrelated (and not always so friendly). [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::You are talking about inserting this material into the "Coming of Age" section which covers a period from Dec 73 to the 80s. These incidents occurred during that period and are therefore legitimate inclusions. You can't just say, let's only include stuff that mentions money, it is complete violation of BLP, bias, fairness, undue weight etc.[[User:Momento|Momento]] ([[User talk:Momento|talk]]) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Draft 8 == |
== Draft 8 == |
Revision as of 21:41, 8 July 2008
Proposal 7.1
Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle. I've prepared and posted a draft. Almost all of the sources used in it are at Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. The material contains a review of the main issues raised in countless articles, especially concerning cars, planes, and real estate. His mother is the only named critic. There are two quotes from Rawat, one from a follower, and one from a spokesman. We could shorten it by getting rid of the four short quotes but I think they add context. Which reminds me, I can't find the source for Indian gurus being supported in luxury. I know I've seen it recently. Can anyone help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- (a) celebrityaircraft.com is not a RS; (b) Over quoting Levine is unacceptable; (c) Indian gurus being supported in luxury I don't know where you got that from; (d) Hunt does not speak of "ostentatious opulence", that is Levine again; (e) the quotes are picked up for effect; (f) missing important context about many of these cars being gifts; (g) Don't get me started on Larson as a source. In summary: A shorter, tighter sentence that is fully attributed may work, as it stands it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- A) That was just for convenience. There appear to be other sources for the private jets. B) Overquoting? For one thing, they're two different Levines. Regardless of that, I'm not sure I've ever heard of an objection to "over quoting" from a source. C) It'll show up. I know I've seen it and I recall we all discussed it some time back. D) Yes, that's from Levine. So? It's cited. E) The quotes are picked to be informative and give context. F) I have sources for the London Rolls and the Masaerati being gifts. Do you have sources for any others? Maybe the simplest thing would be to tack on, "...some of which were gifts." G) Larson agrees with Downton that Rawat's father was wealthy. Larson qualifies as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- (a) Which other sources?; (b) if there are different "Levines" please provide full sources; (c) We shall see if it does; (d) that Levine is not a "scholar", he is a psychiatrist; (e) The quotes are picked up for effect and not "informative" whatsoever; (f) "some of which were gifts" it is not enough; (g) Larson's book is written from a Christian perspective attacking anything that is not Christian. If used at all, it need full attribution and context. The book is described as "This volume helps address tough questions from a biblical perspective." In the back cover: "Bob Larson analyzes the history, practices, and appeal of each movement and evaluates its belief system from a Christian perspective using biblical criteria." I also don't see anything in Larson's about "Rawat father being wealthy"≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- A) Just Google "rawat" and "gulfstream". For example, "Peace at a price", Hedley Thomas, The Courier-Mail, April 24, 2004. B) As noted the full citations are in the article already, or in the page of sources. C) Yes. I think it was Rumiton who commented again recently about it, saying that it was important context. D) Levine is a "Professor of Clinical Psychiatry".[1] Professor = scholar. E) We can remove the quotes, but then we lose context and points of view. I thought editors wanted more context for this material, not less. F) What sources do you have for the gifts? As I already wrote, I only know of sources for two of the cars being gifts. Do you want to go into detail and say which were gifts? G) Larson talks about Hans Ji on page 205, at the bottom of the page. Since he agrees with Downton, and since no other sources dispute the wealth, I don't see what the problem is. Other editors, perhaps Rumiton or Momento, thought it important to say that Rawat came from wealth, to show that he had was continuing a lifestyle in which he'd been raised. Christian writers are reliable sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Re C) – "Maharaj Ji was the youngest of four sons of Sri Hans Ji, and even as a young child participated with his family in their public religious programs. Given this status, he was accorded a great deal of attention from his father's devotees and lived in luxury.13" Galanter 1989 p21 [2]; there appears to be a footnote too ("13"), of which the text is not given at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Galanter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also re C - "...according to Khalid Shah, a correspondent for the Illustrated Weekly of India: '...He is a member of the highest Brahmin caste. His family is quite wealthy.'" (Current Biography Yearbook, 1974 p. 255). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
A great deal of attention is correct by his father devotees is correct, and the fact that Rawat is from the Rajputs is also correct (but not a Brhamin caste). As for being "wealthy" it is very doubtful that his father was such. In any case, the sentence you have there is not what the sources say. As for the other comments above, please provide sources and I will be glad to discuss them. I do not see page 205 of Larson, please provide the text in that page. Yes, Christian writers can be used, but context and attribution is imperative. As for Levine, he is not a "scholar", regardless how you look at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The "piloting a Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream" can be added in the section about his flying interests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's the source for Rawat's Rajput lineage? As for the father's wealth, we have reliable sources that say he was wealthy and that Rawat was raised in luxury. Are there any sources to the contrary? Perhaps folks here aren't familiar with Harvard system of citing sources. The references can be found in Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle or Prem Rawat#References. I'm not sure I understand what Jossi means by "I do not see page 205 of Larson". It's the first page of his chapter on "Guru Maharaj Ji" and immediately follows page 204. Saul V. Levine is indeed a scholar. He is employed as a scholar, has written as a scholar, and has been cited as a scholar. On what grounds would someone say that he isn't a scholar? As for aviation interrests, it'd make more sense to move that miscellaneous material up here, and handle it all together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I've added the pilots license info from the "aviaiton interests" section to consolidate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Harvard is not the style of citing we are using. Please add the full sources as we have done on other proposals so that I can check these sources. I do not have access to page 205 of Larson, the Google Book version has page 148-150, so I am asking to see what he wrote n whatever edition you have. Interesting how do you want to call Levine a scholar, but for other authors we describe them as "Sociologist", "Professor of Religion", etc. In any case, the viewpoints of Hunt, Levine, Galanter, Maeve, etc can all be summarized for NPOV. The flying of Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream does not belong here, it belongs to the Aviation interest section. As for the Rajput lineage of the Rawat family, you have Cagan and McKean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- If Jossi is finding it hard to decipher the Harvard system I'd be more than happy to post the full set of references on this page so that they aren't a source of confusion. If Joss had only said he didn't have access to Larson I would have provided the quote initially. In the edition I have he writes
- Guru Maharaj Ji owes the founding of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) to his wealthy, revered father...
- Again I ask for any source which disputes this. The flying of planes is much more appropriate here, when he started to fly, then in a "miscellaneous" section stuck on the end of the article. The invention of the watch doesn't appear to be notable enough to mention at all. As for Cagan, we can't use that book because the caste is disputed. McKean is reliable, but still contradicts our other source. I think that simply saying "high caste" covers both Brahmin and Rajput casts, so is accurate without getting into the dispute. If Jossi thinks that the viewpoints of every scholar available should be summarized this material will be much longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- How much weight do you think it deserves, and why? What part of this is unfair? How is it irrelevant to the life of Prem Rawat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- By all means let us say that he is rich and received (perhaps still receives) donations that enabled him to live like a millionaire (we are saying that already), that he had a Rolls-Royce and other luxury vehicles, but this listing of the all-time contents of his garage is way over the top. As I said elsewhere, we don't list P. Diddy's or Snoop Dogg's cars either, and for a good reason – their notability is not based on their car collections (even though their cars have been mentioned in the media, much as in the present case).
- (And would there be an objection to naming the proposals within a proposal "drafts"?) Jayen466 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- How many press conferences have P. Diddy held that revolved around their cars? How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? The cases aren't analogous. Some people end up being notable for things that are ignored in other people. It's not for us to go back and redo history to make it how we think it should have gone. But as a compromise I'm willing ti cut the list down tothe cars most frequently mentioned. And I like the "drafts" idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? Dozens, if not hundreds of times. [3] [4] Plus I believe there has been the odd press conference about a badly parked Ferrari. ;-) Jayen466 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Different people are notable for differnt things. The article on Sean Combs devotes a paragraph to his wardrobe, because that's an important part of his public image and notability. Likewise, this subject is well-known for his cars, and hardly a single journalist from the period fails to mention them in some way. Per our discussion here I've trimmed the list to the most frequently mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I might add that most of the hits from that search are for articles about the Bently that just mention an owner, rather than articles about Diddy/Combs that make a big deal about his cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? Dozens, if not hundreds of times. [3] [4] Plus I believe there has been the odd press conference about a badly parked Ferrari. ;-) Jayen466 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I think this is an accurate depiction of Rawat's life and how it has been viewed by scholars and media alike. His possesion of luxury vehicles is noteworthy because he's a relgious leader in the U.S., not a celeb. The controversy is that he obtained his wealth from his followers. He was supported to a large extent through donations to DLM, which was a non-profit church in the United States that benefitted from that status on the U.S. taxpayers dime. That's what makes it extremely noteworthy. Rawat espcially stood out during the initial acquisition of his wealth in the 1970s. This isn't analagous to celebrities that have lots of cars -- they're expected to have a lot of luxury cars, for crying out loud. See Jay Leno. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat. Here's one way Prem Rawat explained being rich in 1995 at an event in Long Beach, California. Read this and tell me it's not controversial and shouldn't be treated that way!!
- "You know some people don't like rich people. They have this idea or that idea of what it is to be rich. But they really don't know. It's not easy to be rich. It isn't. Once you've made your first million, you need another to protect it. Then you have two million, and you'll need another two million to protect those two million. Then you'll have four million and you'll need another four million to protect those four million, and then you'll have eight million. Of course then you'll need another 8 million to protect those eight million and then you'll have 16 million... it isn't easy, it's not what you think." -- Prem Rawat Sylviecyn (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! As if religious leaders in the US are not wealthy! And I thought you lived in the US. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat is your own opinion, which you are entitled of course, but please spare us claiming your opinion being any other than just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- And btw, that quote is spot on, 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's a nice quote, but it's too long for the article. I think the other quoke from Rawat, about not really living in luxury, conveys some of the same viewpoint more briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is a good quote. I don't see it as controversial, Sylvie, to me it is an accurate description of the human dilemma posed by personal wealth. But as far as I know, quotes from subjects are not admissible in a bio due to the ease with which they can be taken out of context. Not that anyone here would do that. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say: no quotes, please, unless we want to contemplate yet-another-quote war as in the past. Not needed whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- For comparison, I've posted P7.2 which is identicial to P7.1 but with the quotes deleted. I think P7.1 is better, but it's easier to compare this way. Any other objections to P7.1/7,2? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sources missing; and does not address other concerns already expressed. As I said, I am working on an alternative version, pls have some patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which concerns still need to be addressed? Please specify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The ones I have listed in this thread. You may think you have answered to these, but I am not satisfied with your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~
- Which issues aren't you satisfied with? I'm not a mind reader. Please specify so that they can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The ones I have listed in this thread. You may think you have answered to these, but I am not satisfied with your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~
- Which concerns still need to be addressed? Please specify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sources missing; and does not address other concerns already expressed. As I said, I am working on an alternative version, pls have some patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- For comparison, I've posted P7.2 which is identicial to P7.1 but with the quotes deleted. I think P7.1 is better, but it's easier to compare this way. Any other objections to P7.1/7,2? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal 7.X
I will work on an alternative proposal, as I am not confident that proposal 7.1 can be fixed. I will incorporate as many sources used there, add others and present the material in a better and more neutral manner. It may take me a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Every point that you've raised about 7.1 has been addressed. What need is there for a different proposal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
- What issues haven't been addressed in 7.1? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Draft 3
I've posted Draft 3. It adds back the quote from the follower, and summarizes one of the quotes of Rawat that is frequently cited. It incorporate the issues covered by the Hunt quote from the "Westernization" section (except for the follower's experience part, which is probably better placed in some other context). It adds the complaints from the former officials, Mishler and Garson. It contextualizes the Jensen purchase, which was noted by the press. I've also translated most of the refs, per Jossi's request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are having the discussion about this elsewhere. Splitting the discussion is not useful. The proposals you are making are at odds with these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion is over specific text. The other discussion is over the general approach to the issue. It's been running for several weeks. Without actual text to talk about that discussion seems to have wondered off track. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"... Two Cessna airplanes were obtained for Rawat's use and he got his pilot's license in 1973.[citation needed] ..." – seems quite young for a license so a citation would be in order here I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking for that source now. I recall reading that he got his license while in India for a prolonged stay. That'd be either early '73 or mid-1975. We can omit the exact date if we can't find the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the source that I recall, but it's a Washington Post article from September 1971, when the subject was reportedly 13 years old:
- Someone says the guru needs only seven more hours flying time to get his pilot's license. "The first landing he ever made was perfect." "I should hope so," says the woman, who travels with Toomey.
- I believe that age limits are different for flying than for driving. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I checked and the current laws in both the U.S. and India set a minimum age of 16 to recieve a license. But I don't think there's a limit on training. It's also possible that rules have changed, or aren't enforced. I think it's clear that he had his first license by the mid-1970s. Since the material is proposed tp be placed in the chronological section, we can omit the exact date. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I've made quite a few changes in resonse to the input - including shortening the list of cars, giving more space to the view of followers, and rewriting the lead sentence. I'm still fleshing out all of the sources. Some things are so widely reported that many sources are available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What a mishmash, WP:OR and not-neutral paragraph. If you think this is useful at all, you are mistaken. This is just a mishmash of sources carefully selected for effect, WP:V works alongside NPOV, and does not override it:
A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- What original research? Virtually every assrtion is cited once or twice, and those that aren't can be. What specific objections do you have? Is there any particular sentence or phrase that's problematic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, it is a mishmash of materials, rendered to present a specific viewpoint. Rather that making such mishmash and carefully use of selected quotes for effect, we ought to use neutral summaries that already have been made by scholars that have studied the subject ((such as Bromley, Hunt, for exampl) which places the material in the correct context. This s a BLP and not a piece of "journalism" better suited for People Magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- This draft does use Bromley and Hunt. Do you have objections to any particular sentence or phrase? Which part is original research? What context needs to be added, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- My contention is that all of that is already summarized in the article, as per Jaen's arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're making all kinds of contentions but not clearly explaining any of them. Please say what is OR in this text. Also, please point to the material that isn't NPOV. As for being covered elsewhere, see the top note, which explains how various material in the article is brought together in one place, and covered in one logical package. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and you should not use these sources to make a cocktail of quotes of your chosing to assert your viewpoints. That is WP:SYN and most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- None of the sources used are tabloids. Do you have any specific issues, or is it OK to post as it is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and you should not use these sources to make a cocktail of quotes of your chosing to assert your viewpoints. That is WP:SYN and most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're making all kinds of contentions but not clearly explaining any of them. Please say what is OR in this text. Also, please point to the material that isn't NPOV. As for being covered elsewhere, see the top note, which explains how various material in the article is brought together in one place, and covered in one logical package. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- My contention is that all of that is already summarized in the article, as per Jaen's arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- This draft does use Bromley and Hunt. Do you have objections to any particular sentence or phrase? Which part is original research? What context needs to be added, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't play games with me, Will. I am too old for these games. This piece which you have put together by careful selection of quotes for best effect, as if this was a second-rate magazine, is not a happening thing as far as I am concerned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to stop playing games then please explain your list of complaints, as I've requested several times. Start with pointing out where the original research is. Then show where the NPOV is violated. You make claims but you can't seem to actually point to any real problem with the text. Without pointing out and explaining specific concerns your complaints are just "I don't like it." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 4
Essentially Will's draft 3, with cpedit, tweaks, sources tunings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That looks OK to me. I wonder if we could integrate the last part of this sentence into the main paragraph?
- When former officials of Rawat's organisations voiced their criticism in the aftermath of the Jonestown drama in the late 1970s they didn't limit themselves to the movement, but included its leader in their comments,[74] for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17]
- It's directly related to this topic. To some extent it's already covered, but if we can cover it fully here then we can delete it from the "Critical viewpoints" section and avoid duplication. It would also address jayen and Jossi's concern that this material is already covered elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I object to Proposal 7 when several other proposals have not been completed.Momento (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not much of a reason. It doesn't make sense to hold up editing the entire topic because of one or two disagreements. If you're not interested in this proposal you don't have to participate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- This topic is already covered in the article. See previous and current discussions, which you somehow have ignored in these "proposals". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The topic isn't covered fully. It was a source of "considerable controversy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- This topic is already covered in the article. See previous and current discussions, which you somehow have ignored in these "proposals". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not much of a reason. It doesn't make sense to hold up editing the entire topic because of one or two disagreements. If you're not interested in this proposal you don't have to participate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is a moot point. You cannot only propose and create "negative" material to add to this article. It is already unbalanced, particularly with '70s newspaper sources.Momento (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I object to Proposal 7 when several other proposals have not been completed.Momento (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is an important topic in the life of the subject. It was the source of "considerable controversy". As for the focus on the 1970s, it was the time of the subject's greatest prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- How many scholarly books mention him anymore, either? It's not just the media that found him more interesting in the 1970s than in later decades. As for the other proposals, they are all independent. I recall you saying that we couldn't work on the intro until the rest of the article is finished. Now you're saying that we can't work on the rest of the article until we finish the intro. Since there are pending questions waiting at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4, you apparenlty aren't in any hurry to finish that proposal either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Jets
Seeking input regarding the jets. The sources I've encountered thus far aren't too great, re. models, time, typos...
Also asking myself whether there are more sources regarding DECA and whether we should mention it.
DECA & 7X7
- Citizendium (sourced to Cagan) [7]
- in 1980, Rawat obtained the use of a Boeing 707 for his work, and during 1981 flew the aircraft to South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, speaking on 120 occasions in forty cities.[1]
- prem-rawat-maharaji.info and prem-rawat-bio.org
- In 1979 the acquisition and customization of a Boeing 707 for Prem Rawat's exclusive use became a dominant drive within the then Divine Light Mission. A 1961 vintage aircraft was acquired for US$1 million from an American Football Team. A business operation called the DECA Project and based in Florida was set up and ashram residents were drafted in to all aspects of work on the plane itself as well as project management and, most significantly - fund raising.
- Like other expansive projects undertaken by Rawat's followers, DECA had no beneficial impact on the Rawat movement or its participants, however DECA did provide a model for income generation which was free of the costs and other considerations of the ashram system. Although dependant on the ashrams for its existence, DECA, or at least the funding expertise that it generated, can be seen as the development which allowed Rawat to dissolve the costly ashram system in 1982 and 1983, and to still maintain an income flow to his organizations.
- Within the DECA facility a range of activities took place that were focussed on Prem Rawat's interests - servicing of his Rolls Royces was undertaken there. The financial structure seems to have lacked commonly expected controls and there have been accusations of inadequate and illegal work practices.
- Work on the Boeing 707 was completed in 1980 but the plane was never put into service for Prem Rawat and was sold to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who had it flown to Malaysia where it rapidly fell into disuse because its emissions exceeded legal limits.
- The DECA business sought development as a corporate jet customization operation but proved unviable and was soon sold, being renamed Aircraft Modular Products(AMP). Some of Prem Rawat's followers gained employment with AMP but the company had no other links with Rawat or his organizations. AMP prospered and was sold in 1998 by it's then owner Roger Koch for over US$ 100 million.
- It is unclear what happened to the receipts from the sale of the Boeing 707 and the DECA business. There appears to have been a chronic incapacity within Divine Light Mission to protect either its interests as a charity or the interests of those who voluntarily assisted it. Numerous business operations started by Prem Rawat's followers seem to have become absorbed into a quasi corporate structure ostensibly to the benefit of Divine Light Mission, only to be 'demerged' to the sole benefit of subsequent owners.
- Those individuals who achieved ownership of businesses started under the aegis of Divine Light Mission frequently retained close personal contact with Prem Rawat and Rawat appears to have benefited financially from those contacts.
- "Blinded by the Light" in Good Weekend, Sydney, Australia, August 31, 2002. Web version (PDF) at rickross.com
- [...] the first of many private jets [...] materialised. An early Divine 707 boasted a gold toilet, says American ex-premie Cynthia Gracie, who worked to refurbish it – “though I don’t know if it was solid or plated gold”.
- Bromley and Shupe 1982
- Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea.
Gulfstream V
I think it would be better to have some additional sources here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 5
While I appreciate Francis' research, I think the DECA/707 material isn't sourced to the same standards as the rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the article. Mcgregor is disputed and so is Cagan, and since they're the only sources for it I think it's better to leave it out of this proposal. Bromley & Shupe is ambiguous, but we do have enough sources for him piloting a private jet. Let's leave it at that. I also moved up the clause "for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17]", which would be deleted from the last sentence in the second paragaph of the "Critical viewpoints" section. Let's keep this trim, well-sourced, and neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that.
- Re. Gulfstream, I think the name of the plane should be left out too, not enough sources.
- Re. piloting license, this definitely still needs stronger sourcing:
- The only real source I could find is [8]
(note: the link to the Landings website currently used directs to an obsolete page)
(note 2: when he got his license is still unclear, and not verifiable from the Landings website as far as I can see) - the Hinduism today article has "Flying to major cities around the world almost continually in his private jet,..." which doesn't even necessarily imply he pilots the jet.
(note that this isn't a source for the Gulfstream either, certainly not Gulfstream V: the article was published more than 15 years before that one) - other?
- The only real source I could find is [8]
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn Draft 5, since the changes were incorporated into Draft 4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 4 (continued)
In view of the above discussion of draft 5, and the tweaks and updates I brought to draft 4 as a consequence of that, that version (Proposal7#4) is ready to go to the Rawat article, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- We've been discussing this topic since mid-June.[9] No one is presenting specific objections to this text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No consensus
Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7. There are many other areas that are more important. I can't see any discussion about it and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal.Momento (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Re. "Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7." (assuming that was a question:) yes. Read first sentence of this talk page above: "Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, I've prepared and posted a draft..."
- Re. "There are many other areas that are more important." – irrelevant: progress is progress. Quite naturally it is easier to make progress first on issues of limited scope.
- Re. "I can't see any discussion about it..." – Read the whole page, click the link in its first sentence (after which you'd need to click the "show" button here)
- Re. "...and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal" – not a logical conclusion of what precedes it (even if the first half of the sentence would've been correct, which it isn't - see previous point). Let the mediator decide whether there's consensus or not. Lacking specific objections I see no problem to go ahead with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that is not up to individual editors to call for consensus or lack of it. Make yourt arguments, Momento about this material, and if you want, work on an alternative proposal. My opinion is that the material does not need to be included as presented, and that it is hatchet job more suitable for a piece of yellow journalism than an encyclopedia. I am working on an alternative version and I may submit soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Working towards consensus requires that editors who have objections explain them so that the objections can be addressed. So far every specific objection has been addressed. Unless there are serious objections substantiated by solid arguments, I propose the edit be made by Steve at 00:00 UTC July 8. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- No they haven't. All that's been written here is that it's a mishmash which you don't like. Please give specific objections that can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I have, a well as others. The fact that you ignore it is your problem and not mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked you repeteadly to explain your vague complaints. You never have. Please prove me wrong by showing where you pointed out the original research, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, if no one can present any serious, specific objeciotns this material should be posted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I have, a well as others. The fact that you ignore it is your problem and not mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- No they haven't. All that's been written here is that it's a mishmash which you don't like. Please give specific objections that can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, just to give my thoughts here, on a few things. In response to determining consensus, I do believe at times, that while it's not up to one editor to call for consensus/lack of consensus, however commonly it is the role of an editor to determine consensus, and I feel that's my role here. Looking at the current discussion, I can see no clear consensus, so for now, I would decline on making any of the proposed edits. However, I feel it would be best if specific concerns on proposals are made, or alternative proposals are written. Additionally, my apologies for not being highly active right now, I have had a lot to deal with concerning a wikiproject which I help run, so, let's say I've just been stretched thin. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Steve, do you think it's appropriate for editors to stonewall changes by making vague objections? How do we deal with this form of obstruction? I don't see how saying things like "it's a hatchet job" brings us any closer to a consensus, and it doesn't appear intended to either. If folks aren't making good faith efforts to seek consensus then progress is impossible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that a deliberate attempt to stall mediation by "stonewalling" is never helpful to progress. I'm pointedly asking here, that either specific points are raised about proposals and concerns with them, or writing up a new proposal, or declaring that another proposal will be shortly written. But giving deliberately vague objections (not saying that is happening, just saying if), I find makes mediation difficult. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- My specific objection is that WillBeBack and Francis have determined which Proposals are made and what direction they go in. This Proposal is concerned with finding and inserting as much negative material about Rawat luxurious lifestyle as possible. It is biased, unfair and undue weight. They are using the most extreme descriptions such as "A follower told a reporter that Rawat fired a pistol at prized vases in the backyard to "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." to paint a picture that suits their PPOV. No mention is given that the Knowledge is free, no mention is given about the free medical clinics set up, no mention that until 1974 Rawat was not in control of DLM, exceptional claims are made without exceptional sources, no mention that his mother was described as "materialistic" and that she and BBJ were largely responsible for the Millennium debt, no mention that the President of DLM was credited with asking people for trust money not Rawat,no mention that the former officials were fired and that their complaints found no support etc etc.Momento (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The need for this material was determined at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, where over 50 sources discusing this controversy have been assembled. The material is not biased, it is fair, and it does not give undue weight. The Draft 4 summarizes the views of a mahatma, two spokesmen, and a follower, plus gives two views of Rawat himself, so it amply gives the "pro" point of view. While supporters may claim that "Knowledge is free", obviously many people paid/donated a lot of money. The free medical clinics were not set up by Prem Rawat, but by the DLM, and are mentioned in that article. The role of Rawat in the DLM is not part of this topic, so I don't see why we'd include that here. The role of Mata Ji and BBJ in the Millennium festival is mentioned in that paragraph, so there's no reason to say that here. The firing of Mishler, etc. is not related to this topic and is really related to the DLM, where it's already covered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll say again that it's unhelpful to complain about "undue weight" without saying what "due weight" would be, and why. Based both on the coverage in the press and statements in scholarly publications this is one of the most controversial aspects of the subject's life. Exactly how much weight does Momento think it should get, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Undue weight, as others have pointed out, is to give more words than a topic deserves. Rawat's luxury life was a minor point, like his height,weight and diet compared to his age, his message, his followers and his popularity. It certainly wasn't controversial to educated people and as the sources indicate, the media's interest in his wealth was over three years in the early 70s. It is already adequately covered in the article and adding more is undue weight.Momento (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Momento, how are you deciding what deserves weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very easily. I look at the overall article and see the proportion of space given to various topics.Momento (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Undue weight, as others have pointed out, is to give more words than a topic deserves. Rawat's luxury life was a minor point, like his height,weight and diet compared to his age, his message, his followers and his popularity. It certainly wasn't controversial to educated people and as the sources indicate, the media's interest in his wealth was over three years in the early 70s. It is already adequately covered in the article and adding more is undue weight.Momento (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I'd prefer summarizing the available scholarly sources on this topic. Scholarly sources are available. We should use them. --Jayen466 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are using them. Do you mean that we should use them exclusively because the New York Times, etc are not reliable sources? If that's what you mean then you need to show why sources that are accepted across Wikipedia are not good enough for this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jaen. Yes, we have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from the mainstream newspapers. Furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources). So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. I would say: (a) remove all quoted text; (b) summarize the scholarly sources first; and if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jayen and Jossi. If scholars cover the topic, and they do, they are far preferable to media repeating what each other says. One AP report gets reprinted and re-interpreted a dozen times by reporters who know nothing of the subject and people think it is important.Momento (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any specific sources being used in this draft that are disputed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- What Momento says above, about cult reporting in the media, is backed up by Bromley and Shupe, for example:
Furthermore, as is so often the case, the media to some extent creates its own news ... The mechanics of news reporting virtually guarantees that once an allegation ... has been published somewhere, somewhere else another journalist researching previous articles as background for his own piece will, because of deadlines and editorial pressures, uncritically include it as fact. Thereafter the allegation takes on a well-nigh independent life of its own.
— Bromley/Shupe, Strange Gods, pp. 105–106
- Then there was the UN religious freedom report describing media reporting in the U.S. and elsewhere as "grotesque", "distorted", "insensitive" and "harmful". However, looking at what sections of the draft are actually cited to the press, I think no one disputes that Rawat had cars, that a Rolls Royce and an MB limousine were among them, and that there were various sports cars as well. I have no issue with that being mentioned "for colour", even if scholars don't mention it. Likewise that he had flying lessons etc. is not in doubt. We can still talk about where that should best be mentioned, but at least it seems secure information.
- The Rolling Stone allegation is more questionable. The relevant text appears to be the following:
Occasionally, the lila take a more ominous turn. Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss premie who heads Shri Hans Films, tells about an incident that took place at the Divine Residence in Los Angeles, where he held the end of a balloon between his teeth while Bal Bhagwan Ji stood on a balcony 40 feet away and shot at it with a BB gun to test his devotion. Another premie describes the time the Guru fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions."
- First, I doubt the status of Rolling Stone magazine as an RS here. Then I am not as dead certain as I would like to be that "the Guru" refers to Maharaji rather than his pistol-happy brother Bal Bhagwan, the subject of the previous sentence described there as "testing the premie's devotion". Thirdly, our draft states, "A follower told a reporter ..." while the article itself merely says "another premie describes" without stating if that was a first-hand report made to the reporter or hearsay that he picked up. I haven't read that particular claim elsewhere, either. In total, I think this fails WP:REDFLAG for a WP:BLP.
- The mention that some vehicles were "reportedly bought tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church" I find inflammatory. To me, this passage reads like <vernacular> "The cheeky bastard! He got rich off his followers, and he didn't even have to pay sales tax. Let's hate him!" </vernacular> The fact is, if the U.S. government granted the DLM tax-exempt status, and the DLM used it, they were in their rights and we shouldn't be making a fuss over it because we don't like the DLM and are looking for ammunition to shoot them and Rawat down. At least this is how I will feel about it until and unless someone can demonstrate that there are reliable sources reporting that there was an investigation which found the DLM guilty of using its tax status inappropriately. A mere allegation that came to nought is irrelevant.
- Sources close to his mother said that his materialistic lifestyle was one of the reasons she disowned him: My impression was that most sources are agreed that Mataji and Rawat fell out over his marriage, not about his wealthy lifestyle – bearing in mind that the rest of the "Holy Family" lived quite as wealthily as Rawat himself, and fought tooth and nail for the Indian DLM assets! I think the whole thing is just the mother getting her boot in because she was pissed off. As it stands, we are in danger of presenting her as some sort of ascetic holy woman occupying the moral and religious high ground. That's not what happened.
- The current draft uses reliable sources. Are you saying that reliable sources aren't reliable? Which sources used in this draft aren't reliable, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that when scholars, writing in their area of expertise, conflict with non-scholars that the scholars, if writing in the mainstream, should always be given the preference. In this case none of the sources conflict with each other. I don't see anyone here asserting that the sources are incorrect. In most cases they are simply quoting the subject or his followers. It is important to give Rawat's view of the issue, as well as his followers and others. Those are significant viewpoints and must be included, per NPOV. Scholars tell us this is an important topic, and it's mentioned in even brief biographical sketches. It's given substantial treatment in the authoritative Current Biography Yearbook, I believe even greater weight than proposed here. I'm open to Momento's suggestion to include somewhere that "Knowledge is free", because I looked around and I don't see that assertion anywhere. The best place may be to the "Teachings" article, but if it makes Momento happier I wouldn't oppose adding it here too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The scholars are in obvious conflict with the reporters. Compare the language and emphasis. To scholars Rawat's wealth is a minor if interesting point. To the reporters, it's all they can see. And a significant viewpoint isn't the same as a popular one. Rawat enjoying ice cream made news around the world but is it significant, of course not. As for a reporter's expertise, Ted Morgan is quoted numerous times in this Proposal and he's the expert who had Rawat sitting on a 300 foot stage (nearly 100 feet higher than the Astrodome itself). Who's he quoting? It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff. Which is fine for the media but not for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- None of the scholars were writing biographies of the subject. They were focused on some element of the subject's movement or teachings, and just gave short biographical sketches of the subject as background, or were writing encyclopedia entries, and gave short biographical sketches of the subject as one of many. Even so, most of them mention the matter or even describe it as a matter of considerable controversy. The authoritative Current Biography Yearbook devotes as much or more attention to it as is proposed here. The subject's own PR team saw it as a part of his public personna and it affectd the financial health and leadership of the movement. It is clearly an major topic, and is rightly regard as such by scholars and journalists alike. As for the 300 feet, that's clearly a printer's error for 30 feet. The New York Times is considered an impeccable source that we have already discussed several times before, and even gone to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The subject's own PR team? Don't you mean what a reporter claims the PR team saw? 50 members? I'm not that gullible. "affected the financial health and leadership of the movement."? Compared to him splitting from his mother and getting married Rawat's wealth was, and still is, irrelevant. After all it was his followers who showered him with money and gifts. The only people who think his wealth was an issue are the media looking for sales. And this is the problem. As long as sensationalist media reports are seen as unbiased, Wikipedia's credibility will suffer.Momento (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The split with his mother was partly due, she said, to his materialistic lifestyle. When the DLM was in severe debt he kept up hislifestyle, and the movement was required to shut down many operations, drop various plans, and was notably behind on its bills for years. As is reported by the scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The subject's own PR team? Don't you mean what a reporter claims the PR team saw? 50 members? I'm not that gullible. "affected the financial health and leadership of the movement."? Compared to him splitting from his mother and getting married Rawat's wealth was, and still is, irrelevant. After all it was his followers who showered him with money and gifts. The only people who think his wealth was an issue are the media looking for sales. And this is the problem. As long as sensationalist media reports are seen as unbiased, Wikipedia's credibility will suffer.Momento (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any impartial person knows that Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster. And it wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets, that his mother made her claims. Further research will reveal that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans. Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM. As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess and Rawat dismantled it, much to some organizers chagrin. Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge, anything that gets in the way will be removed and that, we can see, includes his family, organizations and public opinion. As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?". He doesn't care what the NYTimes says, it's a pity that so many do.[[10]]Momento (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to make a draft out of that. Indicating were sources would be needed (I'm not saying I doubt all of it, but we have by now a tradition of very solid sourcing for anything we want to go into the article):
Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster.[citation needed] It wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets,[citation needed] that his mother made her claims.[citation needed] Further research will reveal[citation needed] that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM[citation needed] in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans.[citation needed] Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM.[citation needed] As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess[citation needed] and Rawat dismantled it,[citation needed] much to some organizers chagrin.[citation needed] Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge,[citation needed] anything that gets in the way will be removed[citation needed] and that includes his family, organizations and public opinion.[citation needed] As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?".[citation needed] He doesn't care what the NYTimes says.[citation needed]
(note that a YouTube link would normally not be seen as a viable reference in Wikipedia context)
Note that much of the above is about intentions of the participants, which is the hard part to verify, and usually completely left out in scholarly sources (note that Schnabel, for instance, writes about that: from a scholar's perspective he doesn't care about the "intentions," as a sociological analysis is independent from that; Similarly "Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma,...").
And many of the intentions ascribed to participants above are in fact contradicted by the their own words. For instance, "Rawat dismantled [DLM], much to some organizers chagrin": Mishler's words rather seem to indicate the contrary: if he felt chagrin it was arguably regarding Rawat not doing that earlier, before they fell out. – My point is: if we are going to write about (for instance) Mishler's intentions, motivation or feelings we would (at least) be dangerously close to trespassing a few of Wikipedia's core content policies: scholarly research currently has hardly anything on the point; what more popular sources have on the point might be left out for not carrying enough weight, as an editorial discretion. What such participants said and did in public is less a problem: it is both covered by mainstream media and scholarly sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think Francis' point may have been that what Momento wrote is far from acceptable as a draft, as it makes all kinds of unverifable assertions about the intentions and feelings of persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is going nowhere fast
The proposal I made above, which I repeat here could be a way to move forward:
We have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974, and a single clip from 1988. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from mainstream newspapers as per WP:V, and furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources).
So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. My proposal is then:
- remove all quoted text
- summarize the scholarly sources first; and
- if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- We've already done 2 and 3. If you think that this article should only be sourced from scholars then we've got a lot of cutting to do. Likewise the quotes. You haven't givien any reason why this paragraph should be treated differently from the rest of the article, or from other articles in Wikipedia. These are all excellent sources. No one has complained about single citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I don't see where newspaper accounts are regarded by Wikipedia as primary sources. WP:OR says In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. WP:PSTS doesn't mention them. There's nothing particularly "historic" about these news sources. This appears to be another unique policy interpretation by Jossi. Jossi is alleging that newspapers are primary sources while Momento is claiming that they are tertiary sources ("It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff"). Both are wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I expected an impasse at this point, due to the gulf between expectations of agreed sources covering Rawat's lifestyle. This is why we had the discussion off the main article sandbox page. Jossi wouldn't directly debate the sources there, but requested to so only within the context of specific edits. Thus, we have this section 7 with specific edits. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to overcome the disagreement by going back to a focus on scholarly material simply won't work, as we have already discussed the NPOV necessity to cover the broad amount of solid material from the mainstream press. We can't ignore that going back to only covering scholarly material favors PR, due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The way forward is as previously agreed: post edits here and either agree with them, or state specific reasons for disagreeing with the inclusion of source material. Where we still have an impasse, there are other options such as independent assessment of sources, or other ways forward as suggested by Steve. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have made my arguments already, and will not accept a proposal to be shoved down my throat. In summary, here are some of my objections about the current drafts by Francis and Will Beback:
- Mixing apples with oranges. The fact that he took flying lessons when he was a teenager and the fact that he is now an accomplished pilot, does not have anything to do with "lifestyle"
- Lacks time reference. All press material is from a four year period, 1972 to 1976.
- Selective use of quotes. This is not a tabloid or a hatchet job but an encyclopedic article. We have excellent scholarly sources that summarize the popular views of these years, and we ought to use these.
- "which continued even during" - Leading, trying to make a point
- and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". When actually the source says that "So far as I coud see"
... and many other nuances rendering these drafts to be unusable. Jaen and I have expressed the need to better utilize the scholarly sources we have first, and if anything is missing after we do that, then look at the best sources we have from the mainstream press (Newsweek, Time, NYT, etc.) to address missing aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- , due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR That is incorrect. The scholary sources, if you take the time to read them are most definitively addressing the aspects related to PR's lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad that Jossi has finally, after many requests, given some specific issues about this draft.
- 1: The flying lessons are connected with the airplanes, awhich are very expensive items and were a part of his luxurious, vehicle-oriented lifestyle. I've also found a source in which Rawat says he learned to drive by 12. We might add that to complement the flying lessons to show that he had an early attraction to vehicles, which became a frequent metaphor in his parables, as noted by many sources.
- 2: The material would be placed in the "Coming of age" section, which covers that part of the 1970s. Some of the material wsa printed later, but that's the focus of the sources and the material. I don't see why further reference to dates is relevant.
- 3: The quotes are not selective. Rawat's statement about iving away his Rolls has been quoted frequently, perhaps as frequently as anything else he's said. The other quotes are from two spokesman, a mahatma, and a regular follower. They help give context and they give the viewpoints of followers and officials, which are significant and needed for NPOV. There are also quotes from a scholar, from his mother, and from former officials. Those are also important viewpoints. Jossi has been adamanet against having a "criticism" section, preferring instead to have critical material interwoven throughout the article. That's what this is.
- 4: I can rewrite that, but it's the point that Bromley and Shupe make.
- 5: I can rewrite that too.
- Please list any other specific objections so they can be addressed and so we can reach consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying that your draft is good, well no. It is not good. Compare your mishmash with what Bromley writes. Compare the tone, the attribution, the framing, and the context, with your "draft".
- That marriage also brought to a climax the rift between Ji and his mother in India. In his years in the United States, Ji had begun to undergo changes she did not approve, including a fashionable hairstyle, Western clothes, a luxurious lifestyle complete with mansion and limousines, and hippie vocabulary. p. 45 As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expenses. Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' stereotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying that your draft is good, well no. It is not good. Compare your mishmash with what Bromley writes. Compare the tone, the attribution, the framing, and the context, with your "draft".
- They go way beyond what we're suggesting here. We can add his $500 a day allowance and the 747 jet if you think those are important. We can even add that they think he fits a stereotype of a cult leader, if you want. But those aren't in the proposals here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You insistence in ignoring my arguments is dully noted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring any of your arguments. Please tell me which one I haven't addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You insistence in ignoring my arguments is dully noted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 5, redux
- I've created Draft 5 to address Jossi's complaints above, specifically #4 & #5. Otherwise it's the same as Draft 4.
- Yes, I have. You complained about the lead sentence so I re-wrote it to be closer to the source:
- A source of controversy in the 1970s was Rawat's extremely affluent lifestyle, which continued during the DLM's financial difficulties.
- Here's the source, which you even quote above:
- As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle... However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition.
- How is that an inaccurate summary? Regarding the other point, the text now reads:
- Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[90]and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".
- So it clearly says that this was their view. How are those changes inadequate to addressing those two points? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
We have:
- 40 sources from the press, 99% of these during three years 1972 to 1975 - Some of these 49 sources are duplicated information
- 18 scholarly sources most from 1976 and onward, including several from 2000 and onwards in which they address lifestyle issues
How cannot be possible to summarize the scholarly sources on the subject first and see if there is anything they have missed? Why the reluctancy to address the concerns expressed by several editors? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that 99% of the sources you listed are from three years? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP? Why? Many questions and no answers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of the sources for Draft 5:
- "'You're a Perfect Master'", Newsweek November 19, 1973
- "An East Indian Teen-Ager Say He Is God", Ken Kelley, Vogue March 1974
- "BLISSING OUT IN HOUSTON", Francine du Plessix Gray, New York Review of Books December 13, 1973
- "Boy guru weds Calif. woman, 24". Associated Press, Long Beach, Calif. Indepedent, May 22, 1974
- "Gifts for a Guru" in Stars and Stripes, November 15, 1972.
- "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975:
- "Investigation under way into Guru's business activities" AP Jun 24, 1974 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE
- "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" in Los Angeles Times. Wednesday April 2, 1975, PART II, p. 6A
- "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, New York Times, December 9, 1973
- "Pretty Far-Out Little Dude" Henry Allen, Washington Post, September 14, 1971
- "Seventeen-year-old guru likes pizza and sports cars", DEBORAH FRAZIER UPI Santa Fe, July 13,1975 THE NEW MEXICAN.
- "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes
- "Through a 'Third Eye' Comes The Divine Light", By PHIL HASLANGER (Of The Capital Times Staff), Capital times, 2/16/73
- "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston". Richard Levine, RollingStone Magazine March 14, 1974
- Bromley and Shupe 1981, p. 137
- Current Biography Yearbook 1974
- Database of pilots
- Downton 1979
- Foss & Larkin 1978
- Hunt, Stephen. Aternative Religions. Ashgate 2003
- Larson, Bob. Larson's Book of Cults. Tyndale House Publications. 1982
- Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50:
- McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. University of Chicago Press, 1996.
- Melton, J. Gordon. Entry "DIVINE LIGHT MISSION", subtitle "Controversy" in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp. 144–5
- TIME, Apr. 07, 1975 [3]
- Who is Guru Maharaj Ji
Which sources do you think are unreliable or dubious, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nice list, Will, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You assert above that "some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP". Which ones? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am referring to the list at the Lifestyle sandbox, which you are clearly using to assert prominence. My argument is that rather than pick and chose and make a judgment of what is notable in that list of sources, to rely on the scholarly sources that have studies the subject. Note that RS advises as that Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (my highlight) So, now you know what I am referring to when I am asking to focus our attention on scholars rather that journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which scholar has studied the subject of Rawat's lifestyle? Are there any sources in Draft 5 you object to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Draft 6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about Draft 5 here. Are any of these sources unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Draft 6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which scholar has studied the subject of Rawat's lifestyle? Are there any sources in Draft 5 you object to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am referring to the list at the Lifestyle sandbox, which you are clearly using to assert prominence. My argument is that rather than pick and chose and make a judgment of what is notable in that list of sources, to rely on the scholarly sources that have studies the subject. Note that RS advises as that Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (my highlight) So, now you know what I am referring to when I am asking to focus our attention on scholars rather that journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You assert above that "some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP". Which ones? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nice list, Will, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Will's reply above was on top of mine, but I think its worth posting mine as well, so note this may be covering the same ground. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for the specific criticisms of these drafts - these can now be discussed. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Piloting aircraft. When I first read this, the first thing that came to my mind was John Travolta. Travolta also flies his jets on legitimate business trips. However, of course the subjective, emotional association is with a wealthy lifestyle. The other association that came to me is very high intelligence, discipline and maturity to gain a commercial rating at quite a young age. I am of course being totally subjective in my analysis here, but sometimes this is a valid approach when assessing a neutral biography. If I read a proposed quotation from a source, I will ask myself (and others through this forum) a) if my subjective interpretation of the material reasonably reflects that of a typical reader and b) if this is an accurate and neutral reflection of the subject and the intention of the author of the sourced material. In this case, I believe a) it does, and b) yes. As such, I assert that that this indeed is about lifestyle and does belong here. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Time reference. Agreed, but not a strong point (I understand he still flies now). However, this can be mitigated by placing text in appropriate section, so it is not a valid argument to omit this material.82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Selective use of quotes. Please be specific. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Bias (Leading) "which continued even during" . Fair criticism - can be re-written. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Omission of context "as far as I could see". Well, it is clear that it is the author's opinion, but I don't have a problem with this being explicitly stated. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 6
Not complete, not polished, but just an example on how we can write about this based on the best sources we have on the subject, and without picking and choosing quotes for effect. It can be done, if editors are willing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The topic of that draft seems to be media coverage rather than Rawat. If you'd like to add that tho the media reception section it might be appropriate there. But the intent of this proposal is to address Rawat's lifestyle and the controversy and issues it raised. Draft 6 doesn't address that. Maybe it should be moved to Proposal 9. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. This is material that describe PR's lifestyle issues and controversy as described in the media and reported by scholarly sources. It is neutral, it leaves us to scholars to assert notability, rather than your judgment of what is. 100 %better than all previous drafts, and I am not done yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You've never said which sources are "dubious". Please explain why you consider osme of the above sources to be unsuitable for a BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Another specific complaint I have with this veriosn is over-attribtion. When a view that has been expressed by several sources is attributed to just one it makes it appear incorrectly that there is only one person making the assertion. For example, "...according to Melton, premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the newly married couple moved..." Since we have numerous sources for this, it's inapproproiate to attribute it to just one writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Removed over attribution on that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- And the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Opinions are always better attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- If an opinion is held by five people then it's misleading to attribute it to only one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Opinions are always better attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- And the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Removed over attribution on that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- This draft is very incomplete in that it does not give any details whatsoever about the lifestyle that caused the controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The scholars mention some of the cars, homes, and planes. How come this draft only mentions one house and ignores the rest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- It also totally omits the viewpoints of Rawat himself, of followers, of officials, and of former officials. those are necessary for NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 7
And another draft ... points that seem important to bring out are Rawat's age at the time, plus the fact that the cars were not all amassed in one location, but reflected his travel schedule. Since he flew from place to place and couldn't very well take his car with him, it makes some kind of sense that there would be a limousine at each location. The change in lifestyle, fashion sense etc. is not yet covered. (Also note that this draft would lose the helipad controversy.) Jayen466 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are some good things in this version. But why are we losing the helipad controversy? That was negotiated and agreed upon previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there are positive, explicit reasons to revisit a past agreement, I think it's a distraction from the discussion about other parts of this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I always objected to the "helipad controversy" story. It has nothing to do with his notability and it is a trivial incident of no importance to the subject or our readers. It is incredible that a serious encyclopedia would devote a sentence in a BLP about a planning permission negotiation. It should be removed.Momento (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- We talked about that at great length months ago and settled it. Let's focus on this proposal here and now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- How about including here the pilot's license, and maybe learning to drive at 12? Those seem relevant here. Otherwise I think it's pretty good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Learning to drive at 12? This is an encyclopedia, when are we going to stop the trivia and talk about what makes the subject notable - he's been a speaker and teacher about inner peace from the age of 8. Everything else is a byproduct.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- We give quite a bit of detail about the subject's youth, because his youth was notable. He frequently used cars, and to a lesser extent planes, in his parables. Learning to drive at 12 and to fly at 13 is unusual. Learning to fly is important enough that we already mention it in a "trivia" section at the end, and it's relevant to the ownership of the planes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Learning to drive at 12? This is an encyclopedia, when are we going to stop the trivia and talk about what makes the subject notable - he's been a speaker and teacher about inner peace from the age of 8. Everything else is a byproduct.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This draft needs some more time context. It reads in the present when actually all that info about the Rolls and the Mercedes are all 1972-1974. I will not mix this stuff with the transport airline licenses that are much later in PR's life and are better presented separately as currently in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Four problems to start with:
- 1) the first sentence is ambiguous, making it sound like PR's wife's name is Claudia.
- 2) What is the significance in this paragraph of this sentence: "In July Rawat met with 8,000 followers in Copenhagen that marked his wife's first public appearance. Later that night Spanish premies serenaded the newly weds from the street below and were invited in by Marolyn for tea and cookies"? What does that have to do with his personal lifestyle?
- 3) The increased value of the Malibu home should be up in the paragraph where the home is talked about.
- 4) Jeanne Messer's quote is misleading, most boys have a fascination with technology, most do not have their own private jets and Rolls-Royces and Mercedes.
- -- Maelefique (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- For my additions, I have fixed 1), the significance of 2) shows his personal lifestyle i.e. traveling to Denmark to meet followers, the number of followers, introducing his new wife to his followers, the friendliness of premies towards Rawat and his new wife and Marolyn and Rawat's reciprocation, all important indications of his lifestyle. As for 3) let's not forget that this is an encyclopedia not a real estate guide. No preference on Messner.Momento (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Point 3 was already in the proposal, I think it just makes more sense to keep the references about it together, I'm not suggesting adding additional "real estate guide" material. -- Maelefique (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Momento, I'm not sure about the last two edits; I think we're straying a little too far from the cited sources. --Jayen466 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. Why are people editing each other's drafts? This is listed at the top of the page for each proposal. "User should...Not change the wording of drafts, they should add a new draft with the changed wording." This is how Steve set it up. and btw, where is Steve? Is he still our mediator? Sylviecyn (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm still the mediator. I've still been watching the mediation, but I've been doing more article work recently in preparation for an RFA, and because these articles won't improve themself :). Steve Crossin (contact) 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I looked away for a few hours, and wow, how a proposal can die a flaming death...Might as well start a proposal 8 now, 7 has become PR fluffery and probably unfixable (and there's still no helipad...). -- Maelefique (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's better. I don't seen anything to object to in this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- This draft suffers from bias. You can't just ignore other important incidents of the time 74/75 i.e. Rawat was travelling, his message was spreading, he was paying for staff and travel, he was introducing his wife to his followers and the casual and friendly nature of his relationship with the premies.Momento (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- This proposal doesn't cover the subject's entire life, nor everything he did in the 1972-1974 period. It covers one aspect of the subject's life. The introduction of his wife doesn't appear to have been notable. The relationship with his followers is a very different topic, I suggest starting a fresh proposal to cover that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- If this proposal is about his lifestyle then it needs to cover it all, not just money.Momento (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- This draft suffers from bias. You can't just ignore other important incidents of the time 74/75 i.e. Rawat was travelling, his message was spreading, he was paying for staff and travel, he was introducing his wife to his followers and the casual and friendly nature of his relationship with the premies.Momento (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- "His message was spreading" is not about his lifestyle. "Introducing his wife to his followers" is more closely connected to his marriage than his lifestyle, and that's in a separate paragraph. "His relationship with the primies" is also unrelated (and not always so friendly). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking about inserting this material into the "Coming of Age" section which covers a period from Dec 73 to the 80s. These incidents occurred during that period and are therefore legitimate inclusions. You can't just say, let's only include stuff that mentions money, it is complete violation of BLP, bias, fairness, undue weight etc.Momento (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Draft 8
Momento: Please do not edit other's proposals. I have moved your edits to Draft 8. Let Jaen work on his draft 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Cagan, Peace is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press. ISBN -10: 0-9788694-9. p. 229