Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

NOT SO BANAL INFORMATION

Hello Cyberfriends, I have not time to follow your exciting debates, but I congratulate all of you who dedicate your time to improving the article. It has now more facts and fewer opinions. Some opinions are in my almost humble opinion as useful as the opinion of an electronics engineer on Greek art. Specially the scholar who said that Prem's message is banal is the most banal statement I have ever read, and it was really banal to include it. The following information is fresh, got it today in en email from TPRF. I hope it will be useful. Best regards and wishes to ALL of you. PremieLover, or Francisco.

• The TPRF: Food for People Cause on Facebook appears to be going viral!

Since "Food for People Cause" was first introduced a year ago, it has averaged 500 new Facebook members a day, which is wonderful. On June 3, the cause passed the 100,000 mark and became a Facebook "town.”

Now, suddenly, the numbers have begun to jump dramatically. In the last two weeks they have grown by 100,000 members, averaging over 7,000 new members per day.

As this bulletin is being written, (September 30, 2010 6:00 PM PDT), TPRF: Food for People membership is topping 239,000!

It’s fun to open the URL, then refresh and watch the numbers jump. Our next goal is 250,000 members, a Facebook “coliseum.” Let’s keep the momentum going and watch the coliseum fill.--PremieLover (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but we would need a reputable source to tell us about it and evaluate its significance. Seems unfair, no? Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Rumiton, long time no read you. I hope you don't mean I'm unfair. Now you can start a new debate on whether Facebook is a reputable source. And don't worry about evaluating the significance. The people who receive the food, medical aid, etc. are already evaluating its significance. Whatever you do, have a good time.--PremieLover (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PremieLover, as the article has generally become better, smaller flaws are now more conspicuous, like e.g. that “banal” and “poorly delivered” quote, where a later sociologist tells about an impression he had as a 22-year old hippie. From today’s scope it may appear debatable whether that puffy type of information needs to be included in a good article. It feels good though to have some stability in the article, and it seems like everybody enjoys a rest for the time being. Nice to hear, that TPRF, which has been considered not notable here with the article being deleted, gets a lot of attention in reality. But then even the whole Prem Rawat article in the Italian WP has been deleted supposedly for lack of notability, even though Rawat receives more than average public attention in Italy. So on a larger scale we’re doing not bad.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with that. TPRF e-mails about their Facebook performance are primary sources. We need reputable, preferably scholarly, secondary sources to tell us if these figures are true, compare them to similar Facebook charities and tell us how significant they are. Do you know someone like that? Also, please do not confuse Wikipedia with reality. The millions of people who are benefiting from Prem Rawat's life do not even exist for Wikipedia until someone with a reputation to lose if they get it wrong notices them and tells us about them. Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW: The Italian article was deleted without observable resistance by a single Rawat-critic. Or, even worse, look at the French Prem Rawat article! Hopelessly one-sided anti-Rawat-POV, and not even carrying a POV-tag. There is no substantial Dutch article. The Danish article is at least POV-tagged, though it remains unclear by which side. I guess a well-researched, stable and neutral en.-article might give editors there a little encouragement for improvement in the long run. Guess we are lucky to have enough Wiki-experienced editors on the article here to maintain a constructive discussion, they seem to be a rather rare species.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The TPRF 2009 Annual Report has been published. According to the report, 48% of donations went to Rawat's "Message of Peace," 12% went to "Public Events," for a total of 60% of funding going towards Prem Rawat's activities/message, which totals $1,511,572. Twenty-Eight percent (28%), or $704,063 went toward "Humanitarian Grants and Aid," and 12% or $303,695 went towards "Fundraising," and "Management and General." Based on the Facebook membership numbers, that amounts to an average of under $2.00 donation per Facebook member that goes towards humanitarian aid and causes. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's more original research. Please stop it, all of you. We don't need another war around here. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not warring, just making a point about primary sources and original research, but I should have spelled it out. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just refer the editor to WP:BLP. Ronk01 talk 15:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bryck, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'm surprised there's no link to wopg.org here-- at least in my area, the wiki page comes up first in a google search of Prem Rawat- and wopg not even on pg 1- a link from wikipedia coudn't hurt Bryck (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Already done -Atmoz (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo caption

• Prem Rawat speaking shortly after the death of his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. He was dressed in traditional mourning clothes with a shaved head. July 1966.

Am I to understand that we're using a comment left on a Wikicommons talk page as a source for text in Wikipedia?[1] If so, I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Since the details are apparently disputed, I suggest we re-caption it something generic, like "Prem Rawat as a child".   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see details being disputed, but a chance for gain in logical congruity. Anybody know how the subject's age on the foto had been originally sourced? If not better, we should change it.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jossi uploaded it on behalf of the TPRF and said it was from 1966. Obviously, he's not a source either, but it sounds like both assertions are coming second-hand from the TPRF. I suppose it'd simplify things if they'd simply post the photo on their website with an explanation there.

Frankly, I think it's a bad picture. The subject is in an odd pose. It's unfortunate that, due to the copyright issues, we can only use photos given out by the TRPF. However there's no rule that we have to use all of them.

• Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. BLP Images
• Image captions are subject to [NOR] no less than statements in the body of the article. Original images.

I suggest again trimming the caption until we have a reliable source, and possible removing the entire image.   Will Beback  talk  12:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree the photo shows the subject in a "false or disparaging light," it's intensity just needs to be explained by a caption. If the statement is indeed from TPRF, who appear to speak for the subject, then it appears that they are happy with the use of the photo as long as it is explained that he was speaking to a group of students immediately after the death of the person who was his father and their master. Cagan's book Peace is Possible page 70, shows a very similar picture dated Aug 1966, with a caption similar to the one we now have. Personally, I think this photo is a valuable addition to the article's coverage of the subject. Would it help if TPRF gave us a direct indication of their position? Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject has a personal website, which speaks for him. Cagan is not a reliable source, and the foundation's relationship with the subject has always been unclear. I am sure, however that we cannot use a post on Wikicommons as our source. I'm going to go ahead an put in the generic caption I suggested until we find a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Will here, Wikicommons is not a reliable source, just like Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Ronk01 talk 19:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The article says Rawat founded TPRF. If the picture is from the Foundation's collection and they say it is from 1966, I would go along with that, provided OTRS received a mail from them stating so. --JN466 11:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember there has been a consensus over not using Cagan for contended issues. I see no ground for contention here. The picture is an important historic document for a defined point in time and history and should be captioned accordingly. It is not typical for "Rawat as a child", but for him on the background of accepting his father's succession. The article was better before you garbeled the caption. Please consider reverting.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think you are off-base here, Will. And Wikicommons would not be the source for this, just as Wikipedia is not, but they both point to good sources. In this case, I think TPRF would be an impeccable primary source for this non-contentious matter, as Rainer points out. And regarding the issue of "false or disparaging lights", showing a child wearing mourning garb and with a shaved head, and just labeling it "the subject as a child" seems to imply he went about looking like that every day. It almost seems like we are going out of our way to make the light false. Rumiton (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Rainer P, Cagan is contentious in this issue because there are 2 possible dates for this image, she is not a reliable source to pick one age over the other. In response to Rumiton, it seems TPRF is a source for *both* dates/ages, obviously they both cannot be correct. I do see your point about the image possibly giving people the impression that he went around looking like that every day, but I don't see how to make a short caption that solves that issue, the other solutions would be to not use the picture, or have a more definitive statement from TPRF's website. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about avoiding the date and just captioning like: Prem Rawat in trad. mourning attire after his father's death? Everybody can see he's a child.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What source do we have for this assertion? At the moment, all we have is a posting on a Wikicommons talk page.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will contact TPRF and WOPG (Words of Peace Global.) I am sure that they, especially when coupled with Cagan's info, will make this uncontroversial subject clear. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Whatever happens, please make sure it's reasonably transparent and entirely compliant with WP:V. If TPRF makes an assertion about this photo, it'd be better if they gave a source of some kind, or at least signing it, rather than just making an anonymous assertion on a webpage.   Will Beback  talk 

I shall put that to them. Rumiton (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be fine for them to say, for example, "Maharaji remembers this as a photo of ..."   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The TPRF Media Representative tells me that TPRF has confirmed the provenance of that photo with OTRS, and they feel that should suffice for Wikipedia. Here. Rumiton (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. However I still don't like using an anonymous source from a mysterious foundation as a source for Wikipedia material. I know we tend to be less demanding for photo identifications then for other materials, so I guess it will qualify.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true I didn't get the name of the Media Rep but I don't see anything mysterious about TPRF. Very transparent, really. Anyway, I shall make the change. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So transparent that the name of their media representative is secret. ;)   Will Beback  talk 

I don't know if his/her name is a "secret" but I can understand why they might prefer privacy. For the last few years, anyone publically supporting Prem Rawat can expect a storm of vilification from a small number of mostly anonymous Internet posters. People's lives and families have been badly affected. I am told even IRCC's lawyer in Brisbane who successfully defended the business in the John Macgregor slander case, and has no other connection with them, was getting hate mail until recently. The climate is changing fast, but for the time being, openness is one thing; stupidity is a whole another. Apart from that, TPRF says exactly what they are going to do and does it. Anyway, this is not the place for this... Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, give it a rest already, Rumiton. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the case wasn't about slander (or more correctly, libel). Or was it? Sylviecyn (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, not the place. See you on my talkpage if you want to continue with this stuff. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Formalization

Formalization is a disambig page, currently leaving the choice between a meaning in the field of formal logic (linking to formal system) and one in the field of sociology (linking to bureaucracy). Meridith McGuire (2002) is afaik writing in the field of sociology, so hyperlinking the word "formalization" to the latter of these choices in a text explaining the content of that source is imho standard Wikipedia practice.

I should have marked my edit as "minor". Sorry, forgot. Anyway not an "important change", so I propose to to undo Ruminton's revert

If it is doubted that McGuire writes in a sociological context here, I'd gladly link to the disambig page for the time being.

For the content of the formalization page at Wikipedia, I refer to that page or it's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid the appearance of edit warring I suggest you leave it as it is until we discuss it. The passage from McGuire that I believe is relevant is: The guru's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates", and pressure toward certifying movements teachers. This is not about bureacracy, it is about developing standards of communication and behaviour. Rumiton (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC) The above quote is from: McGuire, Meredith B. "Religion: the Social Context" fifth edition (2002) ISBN 0-534-54126-7 Chapter. 5 "The dynamics of religious collectivities", section “How Religious Collectivities Develop and Change’’, sub-section "Organizational Transformations" page 175 Rumiton (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a more extended quote, illustrating McGuire indicates "formalization" as the transition from a "charismatic" leadership style to a more bureaucratic (aka "legal-rational") structure:

McGuire, Meredith B. "Religion: the Social Context" fifth edition (2002) ISBN 0-534-54126-7 Chapter. 5 "The dynamics of religious collectivities", section “How Religious Collectivities Develop and Change’’, sub-section "Organizational Transformations" page 175 "As Weber pointed out, the long-term impact of a movement hinges on transformation of bases of authority and leadership from a charismatic mode to either traditional or legal-traditional rational structures. When a movement becomes established, there is a strong tendency for the organization to calcify around the memory of the early dynamism; its own tradition becomes the rationalization for why things should be done in a certain way. Early stages of a movement organization involve simple structures such as the charismatic leader and followers or leader, core followers, and other followers. The transition to legal-rational structures is typically accompanied by the elaboration and standardization of procedures, the emergence of specialized statuses and roles, and the formalizing of communication among members. The early years of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) in the United States were characterized by rapidly growing, loosely affiliated local ashrams (i.e., groups of devotees, usually living communally), united mainly by the devotion to the ambiguous charismatic figure of Guru Maharaj Ji. As the DLM became increasingly structured and centralized, leadership and power focused in the Denver headquarters. The guru's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates", and pressure toward certifying movements teachers. " (Thomas Pilarzyk ‘’The origin, development, and decline of a youth culture religion: An application of the sectarianization theory’’ in Review of Religious Research 20, 1:33-37, 1978) ”

(note: the first edition of McGuire's book was 1981) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This subject was discussed at considerable length about 2 years ago, and this section of the article has been very stable since then. I see nothing in this excerpt that equates "formalisation" with "bureacracy." It is drawing too long a bow altogether. If you feel this reference to McGuire's study needs to be expanded, based on the above, then we can discuss that. Rumiton (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The differentiation of formalization and bureaucracy here is fairly tedious, the PRF (I thing it's WOP now) could be construed as being bureaucratic, but there are no secondary sources to support this that I know of. Ronk01 talk 22:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mistype perhaps? Did you mean tenuous? Anyway, according to the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, TPRF has only 5 officials, none of them paid, and administrative costs in 2007 amounted to only 7% of their total income, so I doubt if you will find a reputable secondary source who will describe them as bureaucratic. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to say, was that to some people, TPRF could look bureaucratic. Ronk01 talk 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's all try hard to avoid that sort of speculation. Rumiton (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ronk01 talk 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear that to most readers (including those replying in this section) the meaning of the word "formalization" in McGuires analysis is largely impenetrable, even after a broader quote of her text was given above. "Formalization" is in the current context a sociological concept, while the Rawat article is not the right place to explain such concepts. A hyperlink to a place that contains more insight regarding the used terminology (for those trying to understand the text without being acquainted with the used terminology) seems in it place. I'll hyperlink to the disambig page for the time being, until such time that maybe some more specific content on the term becomes available in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis, peace has prevailed on this article for some time now. Making undiscussed additions to the article accompanied by patronisng talk page comments (above) is not the way to maintain it. I have reverted your addition. Please discuss if you want to. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

A Happy And Peaceful New Year To All Editors Of This Article!--Rainer P. (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happiness and peace back to you buddy! Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! I can't believe how old I am, but still I feel so young!!!!!!  :):):) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's because what feels in us is not subject to aging...--Rainer P. (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

General view of him as cult leader

It's probably the most important fact about him, and we had it buried. I moved it to the lead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As an exemplary editor, I think it is naive to think this would be non-controversial, and thus to stomp into the midst with size-9 boots without discussing it first. Starting a talk-page discussion after making the change doesn't cut it; c'mon, you know it is controversial; a huge number of Wikipedians have expended enormous time over this article. Moving a claim to the lede dramatically changes the balance; yes, I accept it is referenced; that is not the point. It's probably also a 'good; edit; but it ain't an uncontroversial one. I admire your bold spirit, but I am not impressed by your failure to discuss this.  Chzz  ►  02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact is undisputed. The question is simply how much weight to give it. The subject's notability is almost entirely centered on the period from when he became Guru Maharaj Ji and head of the Divine Life Mission in 1966, until shortly after he changed his name and the name of his group in the mid-1980s. During that period he was often categorized as a cult leader. In any case, Wales initiated a discussion here. If editors disagree that this was a key part of his notability we can discuss it further.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BRD  Chzz  ►  03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

???   Will Beback  talk  04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I retract that; it was unnecessarily cryptic and it was inaccurate; I was referring to the normal cycle of "bold", "revert", "discuss" and that, whilst we encourage bold changes, if others disagree then discussion is necessary. However, in this inst, nobody actually reverted jwales, so it was not an appropriate comment. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  04:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All good, but please avoid speaking in person ("your", "your", etc.). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It has also been in the lede before, and lasted a few days before someone in the "Pro-Rawat" camp again reverted it. But I agree with Will, the fact is undisputed. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do people think we have an article that is as awkwardly titled as List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents? Because nothing good ever came from discussions of what is or is not "a cult".

The problem is not only with "cult followers" who try to avoid at any cost that their movement is labelled "a cult", the problem is just as severe with the bigot "counter-cult movement" which tries to label everything that doesn't meet their criteria for orthodoxy as "cults". Any attempt to maintain encyclopedicity or neutrality is doomed in this case.

Prem Rawat is just one of the handful of cheesy gurus who made a fortune in the 1960s-1970s. At least he is in the minority who have not been later found guitly of embezzlement, pedophilia, murder or any of the other niceties usually associated with this profession.

It will be enough to just label him as a guru of a new religious movement. This is equivalent to saying he has "been labelled a cult leader in anti-cult documents", because such documents will so label anything of that kind. --dab (𒁳) 12:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As those who have been involved in the history of this page will know, the utmost care must be taken when we introduce statements like "cult leader," as these are exactly the kind of statements that tend to generate the massive blowups that lead to ArbCom. (Perhaps not that extreme here) Thus I preface my next statement. While Jimbo did act rather rashly in making his edit, it must be understood that his point is valid, there is (or perhaps was when he was most prominent) a general tone in the media and some academia that Rawat acts much like a cult leader (the veracity of this statement is, of course open to question). With this knowledge, and proper sources and examples, (ex-premies often describe him as a cult leader, but then again, they do have a strong bias) this is something that needs to be included in this, or perhaps another article, in the interest of completeness and NPOV coverage of the topic. Ronk01 talk 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's valid to mention in the lead. I would put it into the reception paragraph though (paragraph 4 of the lead), along with the other criticism. The 3rd and 4th sources aren't too great; perhaps we can find something better. --JN466 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a better source we could use: [2] (David Adams Leeming; Kathryn Wood Madden; Stanton Marlan (September 2009). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Springer. p. 274. ISBN 9780387718019. Retrieved 3 February 2011.) --JN466 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That might work. Ronk01 talk 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of.   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a proposal for the last paragraph of the lead, to replace the sentence Jimbo inserted:

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, and has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses; his movement attracted a considerable amount of negative publicity in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was viewed as a cult.

Thoughts? --JN466 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Are yopu suggesting removing the sentence Jimbo inserted referring to Rawat as a 'cult leader'? If so, I oppose this change. There is an important, if subtle, difference between calling DLM/EV a cult, and Rawat a cult leader. The former is what many followers of Rawat do, while they claim that perception has nothing to do with Rawat. This article is about Prem Rawat. He was/is viewed as a cult leader, so whether you add your text or not, I think Jimbo's text should remain. --John Brauns (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a good proposal and an improvement to the current lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some documented evidence that it's no longer viewed as a cult, though. And remove the 'spin' that implies that Rawat's claim (that human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by ... practicing the meditation techniques he lays claim to) is factual. The human need for fulfillment is a not so easily demeaned. Revera (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The "need for human fulillment" sentence has been in the lede unchanged for more than two years. I haven't touched it. If you want to change it, please start a new thread. Re your other point, there is further comment in the source, but I don't think it's needed here. --JN466 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The passage you linked to speaks of both Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital as being "thought to be a cult".

In what way does that contradict Mr Wales' ("Jimbo's", if he prefers!) recent contribution to the article?

And as for your observation that you don't think it's needed here ... Great Scott! What's that you say? Betray your bias? Surely not! Revera (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

According to their site, Elan Vital has been replaced by Words of Peace International, Inc. (Not to be confused with Words of Peace Global.) AndroidCat (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Revera, let's stick to discussing content. As you say, neither the source—nor the proposed text derived from it—contradicts Jimbo's sentence. What the proposal does is move the statement on DLM/EV being viewed as a cult to the reception part of the lead.

The source's further comment about the movement is, "It has subsequently adopted a less evangelical stance and dropped the trappings of its Hindu origins. The teachings are non-denominational and appeal to people of all religious persuasions and none." We could add the abandonment of the evangelical stance and the Hindu trappings—it's covered in the article—but that's not strictly speaking a part of the movement's reception.

As we're all aware, the movement has pretty much dropped from the media's cult radar. News reports about Rawat have been rare the last twenty years. Some of the ones there have been have been positive, framing him as an "ambassador of peace" etc. His movement is no longer a "youth religion" with an average age of twenty-something; it's probably more like fifty-something these days. Members are mature individuals following the lifestyle of their choice. The movement was one of the most prominent cults in the West in the 1970s and 1980s, on a par with Scientology, Unification Church etc. in terms of media reporting; it no longer is. --JN466 08:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been in the article for for over two years without controversy,.[3] Rather than trying to come up with new text that will satisfy everyone, the simplest solution to concerns about its placement is just to move it within the intro without changing it.   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done; best solution for now. --JN466 13:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that, over his "career" as a whole, the media has often described Rawat as a cult leader, as Jim Wales observed.Revera (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wales expressed his personal opinion, which perhaps in his uniquely honored wiki-position he should not have done. Your assertion above is a weaselism (a statement whose opposite is equally likely to be true) based on original research. If a reputable source with a reputation to lose makes a study of media reports on Prem Rawat over decades and comes up with a preponderance one way or the other, then we can report that. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been in the article without controversy for over two years. All Wales did was copy it to the lead. The standard you're suggesting is not used in other articles, or elsewhere in this article. Note the numerous sources at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of that describe the subject as the leader of his movement. There are also no shortage of reliable source that have called the DLM/EV a "cult". We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight according to prominence.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumiton, you trying to call me a weasel? I suggest you watch your passive-aggressivism. You say "a weaselism is a statement whose opposite is equally likely to be true". How does that apply to what I've said? And to what Jim Wales said? The media HAS often described Rawat as a cult leader. The opposite to that would be what? - that they've often described him as NOT being the leader of cult? I suggest you think about what your accusation of 'weaselism' actually achieves - as regards your own credibility as much as anything else. Revera (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Steady on, Revera. Weaselisms are not words used by weasels. They are errors in expression that we all fall into sometimes. They are sentences that appear to say something important, but do not stand up to closer scrutiny. I could easily say (and do) that Prem Rawat has "often" been described in other ways as well; as an "Amassador for Peace" a "charismatic leader" and "the leader of a new religious movement" to choose a few, all impeccably sourced. Do you see where this is leading? It is taking us back 2 years to an unproductive, disputatious time that none of us enjoyed and that we don't wish to revisit. I suggest...strongly...that we return the article to its pre-Jimbo state. That version was a reasonable, balanced and fair summary of the subject's life, with the emphasis on the pre-1980 era, his time of greatest notability. Rumiton (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

His notability in the pre-1980 era was primarily due to the number of press reports about him. And those press reports mostly described him as leader of a cult! You can't have one without the other. You want a major reason for his notability to be relegated from the lede? Why? (oh look, is that a weasel trying to suck an egg?) Revera (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Compromise :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving it from being in the second sentence to the final paragraph of the lede is quite a compromise - especially taking into account Jim Wales' observation when he added the passage referring to Rawat often being referred to as a cult leader: "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know". But that's primarily for Mr Wales to defend (unless he's changed his mind). Revera (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a compromise and I hope all sides will accept it, and Wales' edit, as non-controversial.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The very fact that Wales has, for the very first time, made an edit to this particular article is, in itself, pretty controversial! Even more so because he, not so very long ago, described one of the former (and foremost) editors of this article - who has since been indefinitely blocked - as "a great Wikipedian". Non-controversial? Whaaaaaatttttt? Revera (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't concern the current edits. Let's keep our focus on the here and now.   Will Beback  talk  14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be putting the focus on 'recentism' would it? Revera (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly notable and striking that Jimbo would come in a make a single edit (and according to the comment above, the only time) to the lead and write such a strong statement in his edit summary. At the same time,that his edit has been adjusted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In case it's mysterious, this page got an extraordinary amount of attention recently because a related page, Lord of the Universe, was featured on the main page on February 2.[4]   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Self reflexive link

Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'! Well, well, if Prem Rawat equals anarchy, maybe... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dusting

This "cult leader" issue could use some updating by mentioning some of Rawat's public acknowledgement in more recent years (it is there, with increasing tendency). That is something important that a reader might want to know, too, even if popular media prefer more easy targets. Then that could eventually also be mentioned in the lead and add to the article's neutrality. What do editors think? Rainer P. (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Some criticism should be in the intro. IMHO, we don't necessarily need the exact formulation "cult leader", because it is better to let the reader decide, and a specific criticism that is occurring often is easier to defend. More criticisms are also needed in the article itself. Cult is a contentious subject, that is denied foremost by some psychologists and sociologists, and for the rest the criteria is so variable that it is hard to reach a consensus about the usage of that term in Wikipedia. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of avoiding labels and contentious wording in the lead, better to let the reader decide based on more details in the body of the article. And although criticism could be mentioned in the lead, one should be careful not to give it more weight than is already being given by the article itself, since the lead is a summary.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I retract my own opinion that the article doesn't contain enough criticism,

2. agreed to the above, stressing that the intro should contain some criticism,

3. after reading the article more in detail, I think the POVvy proponent writings are so ridiculously written in an idiotic style, f.ex. "But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults who were willing to", that it doesn't help his case (in the event that he is actually the Almighty Creator), and that those formulations need to be rewritten to rebalance the article to be more factual, all the time letting the reader decide.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the first post in this thread regarding "cult leader" in the lead, it seems Jimbo Wales posted something yesterday as noted in the thread above. [5]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rainer, what do you mean by "Rawat's public acknowledgement in more recent years"? What has he acknowledged?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, you might recall Rainer has English as a second language. Cut him some slack. Here he means recognition, rather than acknowledgement. I am just back from downtime with a computer virus. After all the work and compromising we have all been through, this is all rather discouraging. Rumiton (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I tend to forget the biographical details of all the editors on the 23,873 pages I've edited on Wikipedia. ;) The trouble is when people are good enough at a language that you can't tell they're not fully fluent. Anyway, that's why I asked what was meant.   Will Beback  talk  12:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, guess you're right, sorry.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A hint of it becomes perceptible at the end of section 1983 – 2000s. There has been a lot more of that kind of news, even if it did not make it into the mass media, and not into the article, let alone its introductory section. But “public” does not necessarily equal “populistic”. I have a lot of work on my hands presently, maybe some fellow editor could try a little compilation? The issue is of course not, what Rawat has acknowledged (very funny, Will), but what acknowledgement he has received. Things can change surprisingly fast sometimes, as can be witnessed in some Islamic countries, and everybody seems kind of unprepared and hung up in last year’s concepts. When people use WP to be informed on Rawat, they certainly do not all mainly, as some editors seem to assume, display a nostalgic interest about the seventies, fascinating years though they were. The article should be balanced enough to serve up-to-date minded readers, too. And the “cult”-labelling does not really do justice to the current phenomenon, can we agree on that?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the subject has received more attention in recent years that's fine. But we should avoid recentism. By mutual agreement we have minimal coverage of episodes that received considerable attention. We shouldn't give considerable coverage to events that received minimal attention. Relative to the length of the article issues need to be given their due weight according to their prominence in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

By mutual agreement we have minimal coverage of episodes that received considerable attention. - er, shurely shome mishtake? Revera (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Recentism" is a new word for me, couldn't find in the dictionary, thank you! Of course we must avoid it. Even if much of WP's forte lies in exactly that.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's local jargon. Wikipedia:Recentism.   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Is there a contrary of it? Longtimegoneism? We should avoid that, too.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any concern about being too neutral in how we write biographies. We should devote space to views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. See WP:NPOV. I just did a search in a newspaper archive and found only scant mention of the subject in the past five years outside of press releases. The amount of attention the subject received in the 2000s is a very small fraction of the attention he received in the 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but to me it means we need to be all the more discerning in the quality of the sources we accept. I think by and large we have been that. I will leave a note on Jimbo Wales' talk page explaining this side of things. Rumiton (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are no reliable sources that have described the DLM as a "cult", or the subject as its leader? Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of is page is excerpts which address the leadership issue. Aren't there sufficient there to show the subject was a leader of a movement or organization, one that has been called a "cult" many times?   Will Beback  talk  12:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Will, that's true, but for balance we would then need to include several of the other more positive descriptions of both the DLM and Prem Rawat that have been applied "many times" over the years, which are equally well sourced. Do we really want to go there? Rumiton (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could rein in the issue with a simple poll of the sources that we have agreed are reliable. Ronk01 talk 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

[E/C] NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, giving weight according to their prominence in reliable sources. It's not clear that the title "Ambassador of Peace" has been used as often in secondary sources. Can you provide three or four dozen high quality sources for that? The intro says that the DLM was a new religious movement, so that's covered already.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The title Ambassador of peace was not used in any of the secondary sources I reviewed (only 30, so not that many in perspective), though the term "cult leader" or "cult" did crop up occasionally, most of these references appeared after the peak of the movement in the seventies. Ronk01 talk 05:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are you consulting? Have you looked at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of, which is a targeted list concerning the issue of Rawat being a leader of a cult or NRM?

I searched Proquest's newspaper archive and got only seven hits for ["Ambassador of Peace" Rawat]. Six of them were press releases and the seventh was a letter to the editor by a prominent member of the movement. IOW, not a single independent source for that title.   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I used a randomly generated sample of sources from the early seventies to the late nineties. I was of course aware of the targeted list (if you remember, I made reference to it during the mediation that I conducted) Interestingly, the last source seems a bit like our article. Perhaps another example of the media using Wikipedia as a source? Ronk01 talk 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this an independent source? It says the author is the Malaysia Star's Sunday Metro editor. How about this one in the North India Times: [6] -- independent or not? There also seem to be a bunch of Italian sources referring to him as a "messaggero di pace" or "ambasciatore di pace". I haven't checked through them yet. While this is not a particularly widespread descriptor, it is likely untrue to say that there are no independent sources using it. --JN466 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The North India Times article seems to be an unaltered reproduction of a PR Newswire piece: [7]. --JN466 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"The amount of attention the subject received in the 2000s is a very small fraction of the attention he received in the 1970s" -- Precisely, which is why dating the period of the DLM's notability as a cult, as in the source I brought to the table above, is a good idea. Rawat's movement was immensely controversial as a youth religion then; it isn't now. In addition, the Talk:Prem_Rawat/Leader_of subpage has dozens of uses of "cult" as a descriptor for the DLM, and only 7 of "cult leader". The typical way of referring to him, actually, in those sources is as a "guru": "The guru's concern for centralization of his power and authority over the American movement"; "... the young guru tells his disciples ...", "Enthralled by the guru's meditative techniques ...", "... most easily described as a boy guru ...", "Finally the unhappy guru returned to the U.S ...", etc. "Cult leader" does not have the prominence in the sources that justifies such a high-profile presence of the term in the lead. --JN466 13:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But would the logic not follow that if (the) DLM/WOP/EV was described as a cult, Rawat would be a cult leader, as the leader of an organization described as a cult. Of course, with relatively few sources using the term (fifteen that I could find) the weight we give the term must be reflective of this. (Ronk01) 147.124.40.93 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

[e/c] So folks are rejecting the compromise? I'm fine with "leader of a cult" instead or "cult leader". There are dozens of sources that say the DLM/EV is/was a cult and many dozens that say he is/was its leader. If we go with that formulation we can drop the "anti-cultic writings" bit, since it was such a widespread view. We already have the "guru" title in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to stick on the end of he DLM sentence:

• ..and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes called a cult.

Or something to that effect. That'd be shorter than the existing version and avoids the "cult leader" title.   Will Beback  talk  09:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --JN466 11:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree--Rainer P. (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

[8], hope this works for everyone; it ties together this proposal and the one below. If not, tell me and I'll self-revert. Cheers, --JN466 12:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Extraordinary interest" - too vague?

The lead says:

• He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.

That's a copy of the footnoted text in the body of the article:

• His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, .... But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.

The source, Melton, writes:

• The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13-year-old religious leaders from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God.

A {vague} tag was added just the other day.[9] Since it's nearly a direct copy of a reliable source, I think we would be safe to remove the drive-by tag. I'll ask the editor who added it to comment, but if there's no response I'll delete it. (It would be good to rewrite the material to avoid the plagiarism, but I'm not up to fighting over this text again.)   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is "interest"? (Did they leave their jobs/skip school and drive across country to see him speak? Or were they buying his books and forming book clubs and discussion groups? or were they just googling him? (well obviously not because google didnt exist)) And how do you quantify the amount "extrodinary"? Since we are essentially using the phrasing of the source, would suggest putting the phrase in quotes. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article? In 1972 Americans chartered six Jumbo jets and flew to India where 500 000 people attended a program with him. They built an organisation (the Divine Light Mission) to help him reach more people. 9000 of them attended an event in Boston, etc, etc, etc. The summation in the lead is an accurate, if rather mild representation of what follows. This is what a lead should be, and no quote marks are needed. If it needs to be reworded to avoid violating copyright, we can do that. To me, it looks like a small excerpt for study purposes, which are allowable under copyright law. Rumiton (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree about that the article includes details about the "extraordinary amount of interest".

As for the copying, it's more a matter of plagiarism rather than a copyright violation. I suggest that the easiest solution would be to put the material in the body into quotation marks and attribute it to Melton. For the intro, we should reword it more briefly to avoid having to clutter up the intro with quotation marks and attributions. So we'd have the body text say:

According to religious scholar J. Gordon Melton, Rawat's arrival in the West was "met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God".

The text in the intro might say something like:

• Youth were interested in Rawat in because he said he could connect them to God directly.

How does that sound?   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That was an intriguing offer not only or specifically for youth.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but that's what the source said.   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here's how I'd write it:
  • Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to give a direct experience of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults. Many came to see him as an incarnation of the divine, and under ...
• That avoids the plagiarism issue. --JN466 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It omits the "met with some ridicule" aspect though.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Will, it doesn't. The ridicule comes in the next sentence. --JN466 10:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Meltons says: "his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God". For me, that does not necessarily translate into "give a direct experience of God". Imparting knowledge of God and imparting the experience of God, are or can be, two different things. I would therefore suggest we do it this way, and let the reader decide:[Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to "impart direct knowledge of God" attracted a great deal of interest from young adults.]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we may have started tweaking for tweaking's sake, but if the word "knowledge" is important then how about: Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults. Many came to see him as an incarnation of the divine, though he was also met with some ridicule. Under his... I am happy with Will's suggestion to quote Melton for the article text. Rumiton (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removing the quotes as long as it doesn't create a plagiarism issue. However, a section of the second sentence is ambivalent. What does the phrase "Many came to see him as an incarnation of the divine" mean? Does it mean many peopled traveled (came) to see him? Or that they came to the belief that he was an incarnation? Can we clarify what we are trying to say there?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that interpretation, but I guess it is possible. Anyway I agree it is a clumsy sentence. How about: Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults. Many saw him as an incarnation of the divine, though he was also met with some ridicule. Under his... Rumiton (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I take that suggestion back. The ridicule appears in the next sentence, and doesn't need repeating. How about: Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults, and many saw him as an incarnation of the divine. Under his... Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The present version is:

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 (English: Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers.[2][3][4][5] Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message.[4][5][6] He created an extraordinary amount of interest[vague] among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. He was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers.

The revised version then is:

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 (English: Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers.[2][3][4][5] Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message.[4][5][6] His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults. Many came to see him as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers.

Is that okay for everyone? --JN466 11:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the cult bit?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ec There was an objection to "came to see him." Just change it to "saw him" and it seems we have a consensus. I think perhaps we can also swap the next "Rawat" for "his." i.e. "his charismatic leadership." Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That edit may have been a trifle precipitous, JN, due to the edit conflict. See the above objection and suggestion. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer "saw him", and prefer tying the two sentences together "... adults, and many saw him ... of the divine. Under his ..." that is fine by me too. --JN466 12:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked per above. Are we good? --JN466 13:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good is what we are. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we add "...though it was sometimes described as a cult. ? Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's what Will had suggested, too, above.  Done --JN466 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good teamwork, thanks folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a contradiction that would justify a "though". Why not simply say "and" instead?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I see some dissonance. "...fastest growing new religious movement in the West" has a nice, upbeat feel to it, while "described as a cult" is dull and slightly sinister. The "though" works for me. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I have been examining BLPs of controversial figures to get a better understanding of how they are handled at Wikipedia. This article struck me as a relatively poor example, because there is a lot of what I would consider fluff from both PR's admirers and detractors. I don't think it is encyclopedic to assemble extensive catalogs of newspaper commentary and then use it them in an effort to make the subject look either good or bad. Examples of things I would remove include The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith", as well as Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly. I think this article could benefit by being shortened by about 30%. Delia Peabody (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is the way it is because of extensive discussion and mediation. It's fine and stable the way it is. If you have serious objections to those two phrases then I'd encourage you to review the prior discussions before pursuing this further, so we don't repeat ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Help requested

• Linda Pascotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article recently popped up at CAT:CSD as a potential copyvio (which is wasn't). I'd be grateful if someone with knowledge of this subject area could take a look and either fix it up a bit or send it to AfD as necessary. CIreland (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note [10] on the AfD talk page. Since the only cites I could find were to the TPRF which she heads, and it has itself been declared not notable, it would seem clear that she is also not notable. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has now been self-deleted by its creator and sole author. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Wikipedia involvement

There seems to be sufficient 3rd party RS articles to merit mention of Prem Rawat involvement with Wikipedia editing and policy.

• Metz, Cade (2008-02-06). "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'". The Register. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
• Metz, Cade (2009-01-09). "'Lord of the Universe' disciple exits Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
• Metz, Cade (2009-06-16). "'Lord of the Universe' loses Wikiland grip". The Register. Retrieved 2011-01-22.

AndroidCat (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for including that kind of assertion is pretty high. There's no evidence that Rawat ordered or even knew about the actions of the WP editor, who is not known to work directly for Rawat. If he had been a Rawat employee, that might be different. It was discussed in Criticism of Wikipedia, but that article was dismantled and I'm not sure of the Jossi/Rawat content moved anywhere or was just deleted. (I've asked at the talk page.)   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly any addition would have to be carefully qualified and matched against the sources, and I would be happier if those articles were sourced wider than a single author of a single publication, but no mention at all seems odd. AndroidCat (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The story was really more about Wikipedia than Rawat. It should be mentioned in one of the Wikipedia articles, but since there's no direct connection to the subject I don't think it should be included here.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Will: highly POV'd rant follows. Cade Metz's "Register" is/was a vehicle for attacks on Wikipedia by a small tribe of backward-looking elitists insensed by the democratisation of knowledge that Wikipedia represents. The irony is that in editing The Register, Metz faced none of the disputative editing processes that Wikipedia has in place, and which he seems unaware of. This is why the allegations he made were all found to be sloppily conceived, baseless and mischievous. The underlying paradigm of elitists like Metz is that the public needs an intellectual aristocracy to censor its information and mould its opinions. In his attacks he told us a lot more about himself than about Wikipedia, and the mud he threw at others does not deserve to stick. /rant Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton: Rumiton's comments above *are* highly POV'd.
And for the record, I disagree with his characterization of Cade Metz's articles (But I do agree with Will and Rumiton that the articles need not be mentioned here).

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you changed your post (did Will get you to do that?) I was about to run through the streets crying, "Maelefique agreed with me!" Rumiton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with Rumiton about the accuracy of the reports. However relevance, not accuracy, is the question here.   Will Beback  talk  17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

After scanning the first of the above three articles it appears to be a report of a follower's activities on Wikipedia and therefore not relevant to this article. If there are specific quotes that say Prem Rewat was personally involved, they could be posted here and we could consider the RS issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First time visit, this article seems to read extremely positively... and that's not good

This is my first look into all this Prem Rawat article and the wiki controversy that surrounds it's editing by Prem Rawat devotees. I have to say, the article seems to be balanced towards Prem Rawat's religion, even for a BLP it seems overtly positive. In a read of sources (like the biography of Prem Rawat, there's a lot of articles that contain information that do not read nearly so favorably. There are superficial things like "The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California." here: https://www.hinduismtoday.com/magazine/october-november-december-2007/2007-10-diaspora/?itemid=280 and then there are more in depth matters like the content of his original teachings contrasted to the way he has rebranded himself, visible in the Metz articles. The lack of information that is so readily available in media makes it seem like a positive spin is being placed in this article, even if that is not the intention of it's editors, it's just the vibe I get from visiting here. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Question to other editors, i'm just scratching the surface here but claims from the dude himself of his own divinity seem to be pertinent to this article; for instance, when he refers to himself as "...Hari (Supreme Power) in the form of man", in his discourse at Shri Sant Yogashram, New Delhi, India - November 9, 1990 - Published in : ‘Life Force’ Volume 7, Issue 2, April-June 1991 - by : Divine United Organization, Shri Sant Yogashram, Shahurpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi... I mean these claims of his are not hard to find. I've been looking for a few hours. Why is it that far more seasoned editors have not found and incorporated this material? If someone's teaching that they are God... doesn't that sound important enough to be in their wiki article? 69.245.65.89 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look at some better sources. Most of those you mention above (the Metz articles and so-called "biography" etc) are superficial, and intentionally derogatory, and their authors don't qualify as reputable sources. Informed sources don't pick out quotes for their entertainment value; they present a balanced view of the subject and put quoted statements into their proper religious and cultural perspective. By agreement after years of tedious negotiation, the article also hardly touches on an extraordinary 30 years of world travel by the subject, speaking on individual and world peace to many thousands of ordinary people and significant members of local and national government institutions and universities. Look for excerpts on YouTube if you are interested, there are literally thousands to choose from. You are scratching the surface here, as you say, and it is the surface of a major can of worms. Most of us would rather you left it sealed. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See right there, attacking any possibly sources of disagreement as derogatory and attacking anyone who would listen to such critics smacks of POV editing. I am not saying that you are silly for listening to the guy. I'm saying that if the guys claimed to be a god, that's pretty important info for people to know. And if he changes his tune to be more marketable, that also is interesting. And while I can appreciate the years of tedious arguments to produce agreements, your still left with a sub-par article. I'd like to help change that, I request that you consider me to be acting in good faith as I start digging to see what this guy really teaches.. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for clarification, are you saying "hinuism today" is part of the intentionally derogatory set or can we add this info? 69.245.65.89 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Following your tip to examine the source a little more closely I found this: http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/premies/bobmishler.html Which is basically a list of major media sources for us to use. Awesome! I don't know how many are allready incorperated into this article but we should find them very reputable and useful. It looks like there are quite a number of links to direct teachings of the fella as well. Not sure how to go about citing that though. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-5MyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XLcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2867,3583336&dq=maharaj-ji&hl=en

Denver (AP) story about his multiple homes, how people worship him by kissing his feet calling him father of all creator of love, etc.., and talking about his care and extravagant lifestyle while teaching abstinence from materials goods, also mentions leasing an IBM computer for $2k+ a month (ah the times) to keep track of followers. Should be good for article sourcing. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Windsor Star 197something http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TVA_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=SFIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2908,4260240&dq=maharaj-ji&hl=en This one directly quotes the fella making messiah reincarnated claims and offering salvation to those that give him thier lives. This seems to be an important theme of his, worship him and you will be saved. How come this isn't in the wiki article at all? 69.245.65.89 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misquote other editors. I didn't say "examine the source a little more closely" I said "look at some better sources." There are any amount of chatty newspapers and magazines from the 70's who had a great and lucrative time ridiculing Prem Rawat. He was a 12-year-old who had moved to a foreign culture where he hardly knew the language, against parental command, because he felt (and still feels) that he had something valuable to offer. He was just easy meat for some, and they played to the ignorance and prejudices of the Western public at the time. Rennie Davis' involvement has been covered ad nauseum (my nauseum anyway) in the past. Here is an excerpt from Archive 35. I think the two exchanges cover this issue fairly well, (but if you sincerely want to learn what he says about himself and about life in general, YouTube is probably still the best way to go.) Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to have wandered far from its starting point. If I may make an observation about the subject and the DLM movement, there appears to have been a disconnect between what the subject said about himself and what his adherents, even the most senior followers, said about him. To boil it down, we have many quotes of him saying "I'm not god", and many quotes of his followers saying something like "he's god". This disconnect was so well known that he was asked about it during a press conference in 1973. As for the here and now, I perceive that some editors want to find proof that the subject called himself "god", while others want to disprove any such findings. My suggestion is to "cover the controversy". We should cover both what the subject said about himself and what his official followers said about him. Some of the latter may belong more in "DLM" or "Teachings", but it should be covered here too at least briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion suffers to some extent from the same old misunderstanding about the word "God", etc. In Eastern religion -- Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism -- it is assumed that all so-called "enlightened teachers" are essentially the same. The inward reality of one is no different from that of any other (though their modes of expression may be, depending on the environment they find themselves in). You have the same idea in sufism – every sufi is supposed to be inwardly the same as any other, their inner realisation is the same (and sufis regard Jesus as a sufi ...). And from what I've read it is quite possible to have two sufi teachers teaching in close geographical proximity, each of them claiming to be the Qutb, which is kind of like the navel of the world. What has to be understood here is that the "navel of the world" is not a location, it is a quality that the teacher [personifies]. It can be manifested in more than one place. Hence two teachers both claiming to be the Qutb are not necessarily in conflict (though their disciples may be) as to who is "the real Qutb". What matters is that each teacher is the Qutb, or centre of attention, to his disciples. Now as an encyclopedia we should exhibit at least a moderate familiarity with Eastern religious thought when it comes to articles in this field, and not play schoolboy pranks like "he claimed he was Jesus". The understanding of "God" in these religions is fundamentally different from that in exoteric Christianity (as pointed out by van der Lans and Schnabel). Jayen466 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP69, welcome to the article and to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project and you are welcome to participate. If you have a specific source and corresponding text that you think should be added to the article then please propose it. However general criticisms like "the article seems to read extremely positive" and "See right there, attacking any possibly sources of disagreement as derogatory and attacking anyone who would listen to such critics smacks of POV editing" may alienate some editors who have worked very hard, over many months, to create a neutral article per Wikipedia's policies. It would be more productive if you made a concrete suggestion (with reliable sources) in a civil way about a specific sentence or section of the article so it can be discussed and amended as needed. That is, in my opinion, a better approach to collaboration.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also add, pick a small sentence/section to start with, and make your proposal. Then sit back with a lot of time to spend, as all those involved previously proceed to swarm about the morsel you've just thrown out, for better or worse, and see what happens to it. Good luck with your research. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, what they said. It might also save you some time if you check out this page [11]. It refers to a number of sources (which I believe include those you have suggested) which have already been thoroughly swarmed about in the manner described above. The current article may not make anyone particularly happy, but it is one with which we all can live. And that took some doing, I tell you. Rumiton (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

THANKS for your contributions

Hello cyberfriends-cyberbrothers of this discussion page. It is nice to read the still interesting debates on almost the same things as two years ago when I tried to help but did not. It is also nice to see Rumiton is still practically the only one with some humor, most seem to lack humor or angry for whatever reason. It is still funny to see that valid sources may be anything published by anyone except in Prem Rawat’s websites or by his followers. Only outsiders know best.

For Mr./Mrs 69.245.65.89 (I hope it is not your number in jail), and others who may have the same wish to understand the subject and the subject’s subject, it might help to read Vivekananda, Sivananda, Yogananda and others who said the same Prem Raw is saying, though with less humor and many more intellectual, sophisticated words, and lots and lots of spiritual technology, which I and many more love, as we westerners love technology.

There is nothing wrong with Prem Rawat saying he is God, if he ever said it, I never heard him say exactly that, though followers may say it, like followers of all respected yogis always said. There is nothing wrong, because he also says he is a human being like us, so we are also God, but we have forgotten it, and Knowlegde is the way to remember it. May sound funny but it is no joke, it is the same thing dozens of respected yogis have said for thousands of years.

It is very simple, we were first a sleeping mineral, then we started waking up being a plant, continued waking up as an animal, and as humans we think we have completely woken up. Well, no, we are still waking up, and will be fully awake when we reach the same level as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Babaji, Vivekandanda, Sivananda, Sri Yukteswar, Yogananda, Shri Hans, his son, etc. (too long list). Good luck with your debates, what we say is not so important as how we say it, and last not least, have a good time, because after all, this discussion page is going to survive us all, not only me, 67, but probably everybody.

By the way, I regret to tell you that I disagree with everybody, including myself, and as I had a great time reading you all, I wish to thank you with a joke by Prem Rawat which I like very much, it is not connected with any of us, or perhaps with all, who knows. An intellectual is a person that when speaking with someone else is thinking all the time that he is right and the other guy is not. And even when the other guy says the same, still thinks he is right and the other guy is not. Have a nice day. --PremieLover (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink

i think there should be a wikilink for Sat Pal inside the article where his name apears the first time, since he has his own article, he deserves a wikilink from here to there. Surdas (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, and assuming it will be considered uncontroversial, just added the link. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whhaaaat?! An article change that's incredibly minor, and yet, still somehow doesn't require 3 weeks of screaming, yelling, and conflicting sources, that ends up in an editwar and gets a user (let's call that hypothetical user "Keepsake") banned?! This doesn't seem right, I feel cheated. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good edit :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The first appearance, in the 1960s section, was already linked. But there's no harm done by adding a second link.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah heck, it was already linked. Just goes to show, doesn't it? It's always better to discuss. Yes, I've learned my lesson now. You will see no more of this rash, impulsive kind of behavior from me. Nosirs. Rumiton (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Knew we should have argued about it first... mumble, mumble... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it's so easy to overlook, should we give his full name at the first use?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! How things can change for the better after the soothing effect of time. I'm genuinely touched by all the goodwill here. This is even more reason for me to go back to sleep again - zzzzz Savlonn (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredible! A minor change to one sentence that didn't require mediation! Ronk01 talk 21:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you read the above carefully you will see that the change turned out to be a mistake. I think we have all agreed now that we will return to our previous policy of disputing everything to the max without trying to apply discrimination or common sense. It is a more even-handed approach. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (Perish the thought that the above might be taken seriously.) Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just when I thought we were finally on the same page, you had to go and add one more sentence... :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

EU Parliament

I would like to add a sentence at the foot of the 1983-2000s-section about Rawat's speech at the European Parliament on June 29, 2010. Something like: Invited by Vice-President Gianni Pittella, Rawat spoke on the subject of peace at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, in 2010. Objections/suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have any objection to that, however, I would also like to amend the first sentence in the second to last paragraph in the same section to something like the following:

Elan Vital, (who closed it's doors in 2010, saying that "New entities have been formed with a similar purpose. Words of Peace International, Inc. (WOPI) is a US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose purpose accords with that of EVI)" , stated that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[12]

I think that sentence can still be cleaned up a lot, but probably has all the context we need in it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Concerning your proposal, the sentence seems now a little overburdened. Maybe it is dispensable anyway, opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good edit, Rainer. Maybe the evolutions of Elan Vital would be better referred to in the Elan Vital article? I see there is nothing there about any "new entities." Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, as it occurred quite recently, the month might be added to the European Parliament speech. Rumiton (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Consent/objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The only source we have for this is WOPG so I've attributed it to them. We also need to avoid making it sound like he was addressing the parliament, which the sources doesn't actually say. Rather, it was a special event held in a parliament building. As for Elan Vital/WPOG, since we talk about EV we should mention something about WOPG's role if we can find adequate sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Better now? So it's not only WOPG, but also TPRF. The sentence now rings a little constrained, though. Maybe we could even add a photo of the event, to enhance validity and veracity. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a more independent source, it seems: http://wn.com/Category:Brussels_Parliament. If we put in this link, we can cut out the according to..., can't we?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a published source, just a bunch of uploaded videos. This appears to be yet another address which hasn't been covered by any independent sources. As such, it should receive minimal weight. It's too long already.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no independent reliable sources that state that Elan Vital "closed its doors," nor is there a independent, reliable source that introduces WOPG, so that cannot be considered a reliable source for anything either. Also, there's no independent, reliable source that states Prem Rawat was invited to anywhere, by anyone, much less the EU Parliment. If there are legitimate news articles or books that state anything regarding the above-proposed changes, these additions need to be removed. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Did i miss something? He spoke inside the European Parliament House, not at or to the European Parliament. Did anybody notice the difference? Is this another PR attack to use Wikipedia for Propagation? Come on. Surdas (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you may have missed several things. The text as it stands says he spoke at the European Parliament House by invitation of the EU Vice President and addressed a conference called “Words of Peace for Europe." The source says the audience was "diverse" and "composed of Members of the European Parliament, diplomats, local leaders, and other honored guests from many countries." There are several non-self published sources that confirm this description of the event and the audience, including this one, the Basilicata Region News. Rumiton (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Links for YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3wDG-ok7oo, In 2010, Prem Rawat was invited by Gianni Pittella, First Vice President of the European Union, to share his vision of peace at a conference called "Words of Peace for Europe," held at the EU Parliament House in Brussels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAOMTG-zN5g, Responding to an invitation from current and former members of the Italian Parliament, Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji, addressed a distinguished audience of senators, deputies, diplomats, and government officials on July 7th 2004 in the Conference Hall of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in Palazzo Marini. He was introduced by President Colombo, former President of the European Parliament and former Prime Minister of Italy. --PremieLover (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Basilicata Region News piece looks like a press release, not a news article written by a journalist. Youtube links don't help. Let's trim this down a bit. We can leave off the invitation, since that's pretty much peripheral. When we get down to 'brass tacks", this is just a speech which hasn't been reported in any independent sources. We can mention it, but it should be brief.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that YouTube isn't worth mentioning, but press release or not, the Basilicata Region News article confirms that the conference took place and that the EU VP was the invitee. Any newspaper must have checked that. I also think the status of the people who invited him to these events is crucial to understanding their significance. If the names of the inviters and presenters are left out we create the probably libellous implication that he just rented a room for himself in these buildings. That one needs to be put to rest permanently. Rumiton (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important who invited him? Is it mentioned in any independent reporting of the event? I can't even find any mention of this in regular newspapers.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is important to his notability. If he is notable for booking rooms in government buildings and creating a false image of himself, that is one thing. If he has been invited to speak at those venues by senior government officials, that is entirely another. I am not sure why you cannot find more media mention of this particular event. Here are four that came up out of about 400 on my browser. [13] [14] [15] [16] Rumiton (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

the first link doesn't work, the second is a blog, the other ones are press releases, i don't see an independent article.By the way, the video states it is a "Historical Event". This looks so blown up, it is emberassing. Why not follow Will's advice and leave it as a minor edit. That's good enough. Surdas (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[E/C] I don't speak Italian, but according to Google this article (or whatever it is) says that Rawat was the host and rapporteur ("Ospite e relatore della conferenza").[17] It also says that Rawat was appointed Ambassador of Peace to a small province in Souther Italy, Basilicata, during a concert in 2009. What's that about?

Rawat's notability is as a guru from 1970 to the mid-1980s. He is not notable for his activities in the past 25 years, though we can include activities reported in secondary sources or those which aren't self-serving. This is in the latter category, we we should rely on secondary sources exclusively. Two of the links in the previous message appears to just be listings of which rooms are in use for which events.[18][19] Another appears to just be a news portal that links to articles posted elsewhere.[20]   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else having trouble with the first link? It is from a group called the Socialists and Democrats Alliance for Progress, European Parliament, and is a diary of events on 29 June. Under the heading of "Peace" they write: On the initiative of Gianni Pittella, Conference on "words of peace for Europe." Prem Rawat, 16.45 hours room JAN4Q2.

The second link is a blog. Sorry.

The third is another parliamentary diary.

The 4th is the AISE, the Agenzia Internazionale stampa estero which translates as “International Press Agency Abroad.” This is no press release, they have clearly investigated the subject independently, though many other news sources just copied their words.

Translation: Basilicata once again leads the peace process. In the prestigious setting of the European Parliament in Brussels, the first Vice President of the European Parliament, Hon Gianni Pittella, hosted a major European Conference on the theme of peace: "Words of Peace for Europe."

Guest and Rapporteur of the Conference, Prem Rawat, authoritative voice in favour of peace which resulted in his speeches and reflections all over the world, was appointed Ambassador of Peace of Basilicata last July 3, 2009 by President Vito De Filippo, during a conference held at the musical auditorium Gesualdo.

The Conference also saw the presence of Pavel Borodin, State Secretary of Belarus and Russia Union, engaged in giving assistance to orphaned children, as well as a delegation of representatives of associations of Basilicata including "Paths" chaired by Shkodra.

Gianni Pittella stated that globalisation must not be understood only as an economic phenomenon, but as an affirmation of peace. "We must overcome the differences that exist between different countries and come to an international system characterized by unity of purpose, quite different from what has been happening."

"La Basilicata, therefore, which is the land of ancient traditions of civilisation, has the ideal conditions to promote the theme of peace. Institutions at all levels and all citizens can have a decisive role in promoting, share and make concrete this commitment and make our region a true "laboratory for peace".

"Prem Rawat" in his tireless continuous travel around the world to speak of peace, continues to carry out the mission of testimonial of a small region often forgotten, that can become an example in front of the world simply encouraging people to pay attention to the issue of peace."

Rapporteur (derived from French) is used in international and European legal and political contexts to refer to a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation. (In this case, apparently peace.)

It was a conference, Will, not a concert. It was just apparently held in a musical auditorium. I don't know what the title signifies, but will try to find out. And if you had been invited by the Vice President of the European Union to address a conference in the European Parliament, would you consider it "self serving" to say so? Seems to me it's just a fact, but an important one.

5. See also [21] though it is largely a repeat of the International Press Agency article. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the better translation. If it's favorable, then it's self-serving. Doing a Google search on "JAN4Q2", an odd name for a room, we can see that events are held there every day. Conferences, debates, meetings, etc. People speak in that room every day. But I'll be this is the only article in all of Wikipedia that includes such an appearance. Note the time of Rawat's speech: 16.45. Who else spoke at this conference? Was he the only speaker? Was this "conference" really an end-of-day speech by Rawat? Watching the video, one can't help noticing the other men on the dais talking to each other while Rawat gave his speech. They did not seem to treat the appearance as a solemn and important event. Again, I think we should give this minimal space.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You make me smile sometimes Will. According to Yourdictionary.com: Self serving describes a person or action done only for one's own benefit, sometimes at the expense of others. An example of self-serving is a lie told to make yourself look better. So self serving is a kind of lie. This is not a lie, it is a sourced fact. The subject was invited to speak at this conference on peace by the VP of the EU, and a room was made available. Other speakers covered subjects such as globalisation and orphaned children. The room itself, and any other purposes it may have, bear no significance. The time of the speech bears no significance. The people talking on stage that you couldn't help noticing are the VP himself, whose English is poor, listening to his translator bringing Prem Rawat's words into Italian for him. They were not showing disrespect for Prem Rawat...exactly the opposite. But all this does not matter. Even if your observations were correct and mine were wrong, neither of our opinions are relevant. We just need to present the views of the source (above). Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't twist things beyond their meanings. A lie can be self serving, but not all self-serving remarks are lies. For Wikipedia purposes, I believe the term is meant to cover statements of fact that are favorable and exceptional. Saying one has a B.A. in world history is not self serving, while saying one has been honored by the EU is self-serving. When you refer to "the source (above)", which source are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the AISE, but the information they convey is echoed in the other refs I provided. Your understanding of "self-serving" is interesting. "Statements of fact that are favorable and exceptional"? So if it is a fact that a subject has been exceptionally favored by many people and organisations, Wikipedia should ignore it? I think you would have some difficulties defending this opinion. Rumiton (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Statements about Rawat that are only reported in press releases and Rawat-related websites should be treated with great care, if included at all. I've changed the source to the AISE press release, and trimmed the lengthy description of the invitation.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The information we are talking about is not in any way a "press release", it is a report on the conference by one of the AISE reporters. You did not have a consensus to remove it from the article. I have restored it. Rumiton (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you restore the sourcing to Rawat websites? Do you think the AISE is less reliable than they are?   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, I guess sourcing the edit back to TPRF or WOPG is supposed to additionally enable the reader to access the event video, which is in itself quite informative, when perceived with an open mind.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about open or closed minds, it's about writing a well-sourced article. Words of Peace Global Foundation (is there even a reliable source that describes WOPG as Prem Rawat's new support organization??), The Prem Rawat Foundation, and associated press releases and videos that link to the foundations absolutely cannot be considered reliable sources for purposes of this article. If a legitimate press source or book excerpt (not published by Rawat's organizations) can be presented as a source, then fine, leave it in. Otherwise, the paragraph must be removed now. Maybe we need some mediation on this?  :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the better source which I deleted accidentally. Rumiton (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You wrote that the AISE article is a report by one of their reporters. Yet the article is unsigned. Do you know something that we don't?   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is signed aise. Is there a problem with the word "reporter"? If we click on the tab above we read:

Aise produces news, services and articles which have as their first reference category "Italians in the world" and refer to everything that may directly or indirectly affect them as citizens, workers, entrepreneurs, professionals residing abroad.

IT'S (A) WORKING TOOL FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING FOR, WITH OR ABOUT ITALIANS IN THE WORLD. AISE NEWS INFORMS AND CIRCULATES, WITH ITS OWN DATA BANK DOCUMENTS IN REAL TIME.

So the article was produced by their writers (journalists, reporters, researchers or whatever.) They may well have gleaned some of their data from primary sources (perhaps the Italian version of WoPG and the EU event logs) but that doesn't matter. All Wiki-usable information comes from primary material, if we trace it back far enough. When a reputable secondary source picks up the info, analyses it and turns it into their own article it becomes usable for Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think much of Agenzia Internazionale Stampa Estero; the organisation has no entry and no citations in the Italian Wikipedia, and in fact only has a single citation in all Wikipedias combined, the one in this article: [22]. If nothing this organisation has ever reported is considered due for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is hard to argue on that basis that this should be the first such item. However, there is another source: [23] (clicking on this link offers two tabs, one for the article and one for printing it), from the news section of basilicatanet.eu, an Italian government website. What that article mentions – and I feel is notable – is that Rawat has been declared Ambassador of Peace by/for the Basilicata region of Italy. There are a number of references to him in this capacity on the Basilicata regional website: [24], as well as a couple of press reports [25]. (It should be noted that Pittella is himself from Potenza, the capital of Basilicata.) I would drop the sentence "In 2008, the Italian newspaper La Sicilia referred to Rawat as a "messenger of peace".[101]", and instead add something like the following: In 2009, Rawat was made Ambassador of Peace for the Basilicata region of Italy. I'd drop the sentence about the conference, as his participation there really isn't notable enough. --JN466 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point and have no problem with adding the basilicanet award ref. On the other hand, there is enough evidence from a number of sources that the conference invitation was extended by the EU VP, and even if the conference itself is of limited significance, the status of the inviter is a counterargument to the idea that the subject's notability expired around 1980. Given the deliberate media-shyness of the subject, a collection of fairly small pieces of evidence like this may be all we will get. Regarding the reputability of the AISE, I don't feel that absence of mention in the Italian (or any) Wikipedia should be taken as significant. I don't know how developed the Italian WP is. But Google gives 49,000 hits, covering a wide variety of topics, from the activities of Pope Benedict to Italian parliamentary reports. It seems to be a substantial and well-used source of information on Italian-related topics. Rumiton (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I see you made the change and it looks good. Short, punchy and well sourced. Let us continue in the same style. Rumiton (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia touch on Prem Rawat's Tour Operations foundation PRIYAN as well as TPRF?

Apparently TPRF (The Prem Rawat Foundation) will raise about $310,000 for 'humanitarian initiatives' in 2011. Prem Rawat's international tour operations (and his private jet) apparently require a more heavyweight yearly budget for which there is a 'foundation' called Priyan (https://www.priyan.nl/) based in the Netherlands. This year the budget for Priyan is rumoured to be $8.9 million.PatW (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We obviously can't report unverifiable, unsourced rumors. The linked website has little more than a one-line statement of purpose and an address. If this appears in reliable secondary sources then we could potentially include it somewhere, but that link isn't enough. At most we could say that the Privan Foundation exists, but I wouldn't suggesting doing even that without a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Will. Obviously the Priyan Foundation and it's declared purpose: "Purpose for which this foundation is established is to facilitate in all parts of the world the education of the public in the understanding and realization of human potential based on the knowledge, principles and message of peace expounded by Prem Pal Singh Rawat." would become relevant to this article should anyone here find a proper source.PatW (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but I did hear that this year TPRF was going to become a purely charitable organisation, with dissemination of his message now going to WOPG. Maybe this new organisation is an offshoot of that process. I doubt if it will be considered significant enough for sources to notice, but if it's a real thing and they do notice it, we can certainly mention it. Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Obviously, as Will said, any mention of incomes and budgets will need to be sourced to something way more substantial than your "apparently" and "rumoured to be". I am rather surprised that you are still trying stuff like that on, and I hope that you stop it. Rumiton (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You often share things that you have "heard" (as in your post immediately above) so should I not equally be at liberty to share what I have learned about Priyan, TPRF and WOPG from both public resources and my own friends within the organisation? You may never have heard of Priyan because the 'major donor' meetings are by invitation only. Priyan exists primarily to provide expenses for operating the Gulfstream aircraft. This is the largest expense for which money is raised for Prem Rawat's operations (as I was hoping to illustrate by sharing the comparative figures). The other fundraising activities are, as you say, WOPG which is a tax deductible charitable organisation and TPRF which is referred to as and the "bases initiative" (raising money to maintain PRs homes around the world). PatW (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011

One only has to Google "Prem Rawat Priyan" to come up with multiple sites where anyone can read about Priyan and the other orgs. The Eurocontrol Navigation Domain site lists Prem Rawat/Priyan Foundation as being the user of a Gulfstream 5 jet. PatW (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While you are Googling, try "Food for People" and you might find this [26] site, which exposes the nonsense of your raising money to maintain PRs homes around the world. Rumiton (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake. See correction above. The 'Bases Initiative' is not TPRF PatW (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, but in case anyone might be confused by the above, this [27] site gives a better view of what TPRF has been doing in wartorn and poverty stricken areas. This is a primary document, of course, but it also refers to an evaluation by Charity Navigator which has awarded TPRF a 4 star rating [28] for 3 years in a row. This award is given to acknowledge fiscal responsibity and overall effective performance, and is only granted to about 1 in 8 of the charities that apply for assessment. TPRF rated highest in their assessments of similar organisations. According to them, in the last available year, 2009, TPRF distributed $2,215,636 in global aid.[29] Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Financial information is tricky to interpret. Anyway, it sounds like no one is proposing an edit here so I suggest we bring this discussion to a close.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please hear me out Will, I'm still thinking that we have just as much reason to link to the Priyan Foundation as we do to TPRF (in the '2000's section). The mention of TPRF is apparently justified by 2 linked webpages one of which is it's own site and the other a mention in some charity report. - Priyan is also mentioned in the official Eurocontrol Navigation Site in connection with Rawat and the Gulfstream Jet, as well has having it's own domain where it invites financial contribution to Rawat's work. I like to add a short sentence (which could be developed to include other orgs) as a part of this paragraph:
Elan Vital states that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[23] In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million.[99} Prem Rawat's mission is supported financially by a number of fundraising enterprises including Priyan (in the Netherlands).
Could we also add 'and WOPG' to that? I believe the word 'mission' is the most correct word since the Priyan website provides what can only be described as a clear 'Mission Statement' and of course this was how Rawat's work was described for years.PatW (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TPRF has been around for about ten years and has had a few mentions in the press (and has issued hundreds of press releases). Incidentally, I just searched again and found an obit from a few days ago for Kristin Ruth Carlander of Minneapolis and Las Vegas, who died childless at age 59 and was "passionate about her volunteer work with the Prem Rawat Foundation". She was the companion of Ira Woods, AKA Mahatma Gurupujanand.

Coincidentally, the US Patents and Trademarks office just released news yesterday that it had issued a trademark for "WORDS OF PEACE GLOBAL" to The Prem Rawat Foundation. The trademark covers prerecorded videos and brochures, and was first used commercially in April 2011, according to the filing. Obviously, that wasn't the first use in general, and they apparently made a first filing in 2008. The USPTO also ahs a trademark for WORDS OF PEACE issued to TPRF in 2009 covering broadcasts and prerecorded video. Guidestar has a U.S. federal tax form 990 for WORDS OF PEACE INTERNATIONAL from 2009. That year it received about $224,000 in donations and grants.

I can't find any secondary sources for Priyan. There are a couple of press releases which mention WOPG. So I'm not enthusiastic about mentioning them. If we did so, Patw's modest sentence would be the way to go. I'd alter it a little: Rawat's mission is supported financially by charitable foundations, including TPRF (US), Words of Peace (US), and Priyan (Netherlands). If we ever find a source saying that WOPG is replacing Elan Vital, or whatever, then we could add a line about that too.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Will. OK but my understanding is that Priyan is not a charitable organisation. I see no reason to make assumptions hence my choice of words.PatW (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that "Stichtig" is synonymous with Foundation (non-profit), which are all non-profits.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. I read here [30] "Commercial activities are allowed if they are within the purpose of the foundation and are taxed." (Perhaps we could add Priyan to that list). Also it would be helpful to establish whether what I have read on critics sites (in bold) is verifiable -"WOPG (which does not offer tax deductible options) is like Priyan, registered in the Netherlands in terms which allow total obscurity of its accounts – though neither entity is accorded charitable status – oversight is even less stringent than in Switzerland which is perhaps why Elan Vital Foundation has fallen into redundancy." PatW (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I've frequently encountered on Wikipedia having been a reader for a number of years, is that the reluctance to use primary sources leads to significant anachronisms in biographies where the individual is still alive. Just because a person was interesting enough to be written about either by journalists or academics, ten or twenty years ago, doesn't mean they are going to continue to have secondary sources published about them. In this case it seems that the biography subject is notable (at least where Wikiedia is concerned) for flying a large and expensive plane - and (if I have read the article correctly) the evidence for that is something published in 2006. Clearly there will come a time when 'piloting a plane' will be an activity that the individual can no longer undertake - age, illness, financial disposition - yet without a secondary source it seems that Wikipedia will report that the subject will keep flying forever. Given that a perfectly reliable, and accessible primary source exists(the Eurocontrol Navigation site) which confirms the biographical subject as the 'operator' of a plane in the current year, then it would seem reasonable to make use of that reference. Similarly, if the financing of the biographical subject's activities is an issue of interest then the public records such as the IRS forms or Government records from the UK and other countries should surely be referenced if there is a lack of currently relevant secondary sources which confirm anachronistic secondary usage ? --Ivoofchartres (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. There are many reasons to limit the use of primary sources. I'm not going to list them all here or restate arguments which have been made many times across Wikipedia. For the definitive rule, see WP:PSTS. Another guideline to review is WP:SYNTH. But I will briefly touch on a few relevant points. First, it is often difficult with primary sources to know if one is reading about the same individual or subject. Is there only one "Prem Rawat" or "Maharaj Ji" in world history? I don't believe so. Second, it is too easy to make explicit or implicit conclusions from primary sources which they do not really support. For example, if we can't find evidence of the subject's current pilot's license does that necessarily mean it has expired? Or, if we're looking through the 990 tax forms and see that only $660,000 in expenditures are listed as global aid, does that mean the other $1.5 million went to something else? We just don't have enough information. From my experience, primary sources are best limited to providing illustrative quotations or details about issues which have been directly described in secondary sources.

I agree that this often leads articles which don't tell the whole story. We might have a secondary source which says a subject was sued while lacking a source describing the outcome of the suit. In some cases, for fairness, we omit the story entirely to avoid giving an incomplete picture that would leave an implication of its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly better to have incomplete articles rather than unfair or misleading ones, but the main issue is that Wikipedia editors are not qualified researchers. The better a secondary source is, the more likely it is that they will avoid errors such as those you mention. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be a problem with yet another of PatW's facts, this time concerning the charitable status of WOPG. According to this site, In 2008, WOPG was incorporated as an international charitable foundation, registered in the Netherlands. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction - 1) I never stated this was a fact, I just referred to the FACT that critics sites have suggested that the charitable status of both Priyan and WOPG is obscure, so we might want to thoroughly check it. I know perfectly well that the WOPG itself says it's a charitable foundation. Yes, their adverts speak very highly of them. 2) I don't see why I or ANYBODY should be made to continuously feel (by the likes of you or other Rawat supporters) that we should tiptoe around the glaring fact that there is considerable criticism of Rawat and his activities on the internet and a lot of very unflattering information available. Information that you are clearly at pains to keep out of these discussions, but that anyone impartial would think is helpful. 3) I don't suppose any of us here would have known anything about 'Priyan' had I not learned of it's existence from reading the recent critics 'ex-premie forum' reports by several former major donors (one who personally gave $5 MILLION to Priyan (much to his regret). PatW (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We can only report what we find in reliable published sources. Much of what is found only on the Internet, however true it may be, is excluded. We've been over this many times in the past, and it is not a good use of our time to rehash it over and over. If folks think there is a worthwhile angle on the subject which is not covered presently, then they'd be better served by getting some journalist or author interested enough to write about it.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the journalist or author would discover that a great deal of criticism is being made by a very small number of people, and that a very large number of pro-Rawat people posting on YouTube etc. are similarly being ignored. The important thing here is that by inserting unsourced contentious statements you are ignoring the fact that talk pages are public areas of Wikipedia and you are violating the standard talk page warning: This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I will do this if there is any repeat of this behaviour. Rumiton (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chill out. Nobody is posting any libelous material here. I suggest we close this thread, as it's producing more heat than light.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The innuendo above is that the subject is falsely claiming charity status for foundations set up in his name. This is unfounded and clearly libellous and needs to stop. As for closing this thread, fine by me. Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record you have misinterpreted my words. I was by no means making libellous innuendo. The charitable status of WOPG and Priyan is obscure because they are in the Netherlands and it's very hard to research unless you speak Dutch. I will comment further if and when I have results that can help this article. If someone else want to add a mention to Priyan as per Will's suggestion that's fine. I would be happy for both organisations to be referred to as charities based on what we currently know from the sources we have. I see no harm in that.PatW (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dear PatW. Let me give you my opinion on ex-premies websites, which you seem to believe. Many people had psychological problems before hearing about Prem Rawat, and thought he could be a free psychiatrist that would solve their problems. Prem Rawat has said that we should not think that Knowledge is a solution for our worldly problems (or our karma). So after these people learned this, they left and continued having their problems. We believe what we WANT to believe. The question is WHY we want to believe it.--PremieLover (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, please do not offer opinions of anything that isn't directly related to this article. This is very unhelpful and divisive. Please don't post anything else like this in the future.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Will here, PremieLover. It is very easy to goad people, but it never leads to a good outcome. If you have good sources for information, please let us see them. Rumiton (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I will not do it again in this incarnation :-)--PremieLover (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Subjective or what?

From the lede: "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"

The core of Rawat's teaching is the CLAIM that the human need ... etc. The current wording implies that "turning inward" (whatever that is supposed to mean) DOES reveal "a constant source of joy" which supposedly satisfies the whole of humankind's need for fulfillment! (subjective or what?!). I'd love to see the scientific evidence for what "the human need for fulfillment" is actually meant to be - and (2) evidence that Rawat's teaching can satisfy it - for all humans!

I suggest Wikpedia might be better served by promoting a less advertorial form to describe the "core" of this man's teaching. Revera (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the inherently non-scientific and non-provable nature of human feelings, I think what you suggest would just be poor grammar; the words "claim" and "teaching" cover much the same territory. They are things that Prem Rawat believes to be true and that he wants others to accept. If both words were used it would be an over-emphasis which could be seen as POV. I can see no suggestion in this wording that Wikipedia accepts his teachings to be the truth. Rumiton (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources we used for these assertions, which are both in the intro and in the body. I've put in some citation requests. Hopefully the sources can resolve this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the editor's point was that he may not actually teach this, but rather with the current wording which he felt lent Wikipedia weight to PR's concept. The statement itself seems to me a fairly self-evident description of his teaching priorities. According to TPRF, which he founded, His message is simple yet profound. He explains, “In the heart of every human being is also a want. A wish to be content, a wish to be in peace. Peace is not absence of war. Peace is a fundamental human need that needs to be felt from within. It is from the hearts of human beings that peace can be created. We may look different, we may speak differently, but we have the same fundamental needs.” What we have seems an accurate paraphrase. Rumiton (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated to this, I just inserted a "please look at the archives first" banner. Rumiton (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we've discussed every setnece of this article exhaustively. Unfortunately, we weren't as careful about citing every sentence. For important assertions like th nature of the subject's core teachings, we should do better than rely on an unsigned webpage hosted by a group with a tenuous connection to the subject. Surely some scholars who aren't affiliated with him has summarized his teachings.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure every sentence needs to be cited, many of them are pretty unremarkable, like this one. As I said, the question raised was not whether the statement was incorrect or adequately sourced, but whether the phrasing was sufficiently neutral. I don't think we should call TPRF a "group". They are a registered and growing charitable organisation, and their connection with Prem Rawat is anything but "tenuous." He was their founder and they were set up partly to speak on his behalf. I agree that contentious issues may need outside treatment, but this statement is such a simple description of his "philosophy" that I cannot see any problem with it as it stands, nor of using TPRF to source it. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's incredibly misleading is that all reference to his teachings in the article is the current wishy-washy 'peace' spin. ie. only the meditation side is hinted at (and then barely). For many years Rawat himself repeatedly defined his core teachings as having 3 essential practices for a premie after they'd 'received knowledge'. These were: '1) Satsang 2) Service and 3) Meditation. He said that the whole package would fail (not work) with any one of these missing. He compared it to a three-legged stool in this respect. He also added a forth all important obligation 'Darshan' (to be in the presence of the living master) which ritually involved thousands of his followers lining up to kiss his feet. A practice that continues to this day. The formal vows (that 'aspirants' had to make as a part of their initiation ceremony) included promising to keep in touch with Rawat personally through 'Darshan' whenever possible. I searched the article and found not one reference to 'satsang' and I bet the other key things are missing too. Is it not utterly misleading for the article to omit these very essential and well-known pillars of his teachings, whilst inserting the current much more insipid toned-down promise of 'inner peace' which is just the initial bait Rawat and his followers use to lure people in? The meditational techniques themselves are a sworn secret of course (and this is covered in the article) however it is astonishing that followers have managed to successfully omit so much of the key, well-known core teachings. They are most certainly easily referenced by scholars. I seem to recall the prior discussions about this, and the followers and sympathisers managed to wriggle out of being more honest by arguing (when it suited) for 'brevity'. PatW (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your indignation which I consider fabricated and unjustified, the problem is that no reputable source has taken an interest in the requirement for selfless service (such as the work done by TPRF) or "satsang", (which is staying in touch with Prem Rawat by watching videos and attending live events when possible.) I would like to see these aspects covered also, but without a secondary source to tell us about them we are stuck with paraphrasing (to avoid copyright violation) the material that TPRF supplies. Would that be acceptable to editors here? Or do you know of secondary sources that cover these issues? Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point that the historic teachings are omitted. Why should the article just describe the new terminology? Of course I can easily provide sources that describe his teachings as being the things I listed. As a matter of fact I don't particularly object to the lede summary sentence but I do feel that the omission of the things I mentioned elsewhere is glaring.PatW (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You can provide them? Then please do. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, there are several high quality sources which say that Knowledge, along with "satsang, service, and meditation" was Rawat's main teaching. Now it's possible that a "core" teaching underlays those perhaps "external" teachings, but I don't recall anyone describing that arrangement. Again, it all comes down to using the best sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[31], [32] --JN466 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those Jayen. I notice service and satsang are referred to in the Divine Light Mission article. Perhaps that is where they better belong. Rumiton (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous Rumiton. Do you think for a moment that Rawat didn't teach Satsang, Service and Meditation? It's sickening to see you desperately flailing to basically twist the truth about Rawat's past here. Your spin just reflects the current organisation's desire to dissociate Rawat from a past that is deemed embarassing. The lie is the suggestion that Rawat did not himself for years continue exactly the same Indian style teachings that his father did before him. JN, as a proclaimed neutral party here, I hope you can see that Rumiton, like Jossi Fresco before him is just trying to continue the same whitewashing campaign by removing any reference to Indian trappings away to other articles. You do realise how incredibly offensive it is to former followers (who were hurt by the cult and want the truth known) to see supporters of Rawat coming here to try to diminish Rawat's reponsibility for his part in continuing to impose a very Hinduistic form of religion on people, that involved a lot of guilt-tripping, severing people's family connnections by demanding 'Surrender' and an 'ashram-style renunciate commitment (that included people donating all their money to Rawat).PatW (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add..if you remove my comments again from here Rumiton because you can't stomach my 'indignant' revulsion to your designs, I shall report your behaviour at the highest level.PatW (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indignation is fine, though endless and predictable torrents of it make for tedious reading. Personal attack on any living person is not fine. Feel free to check this with those at the "highest level", I am sure they will concur. The other problem with indignation is that it stops the indignator from listening to the indignatee (in this case, me.) I am not only agreeing with you that selfless service, satsang and meditation were the pillars of Prem Rawat's knowledge, I am saying that in 2011, they still are. Only the terminology has changed (and that only slightly.) In the next 6 months, hopefully, a new Key (Key 7) is going to be produced that re-emphasises this. Whether a respected source notices and writes it up, or whether we have to depend on TPRF or other self-published sources, is the dilemma we will continue to face. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I'm being a bit over-jumpy for which I must apologise - your suggestion that service and satsang 'better belong' in the DLM article just so reminded me of that whole unpleasant episode that was really only resolved when the matter came to the attention of the higher echelons of WP - even involving Jimmy Wales at some point. My initial reaction was, I confess, one of alarm- especially as I could never devote so much time here now. Anyway it seems to me that something uncannily akin to what you just wrote would actually be an extremely useful addition to this article. visa-vi Service, satsang, meditation and darshan have always been the core teachings of Prem Rawat's knowledge and remain so in 2011. Only the terminology has changed slightly. Do other's agree that this sort of factual approach might solve the 'over-subjective' problem that Revera highlighted? In response to Will B. I don't think there is a further 'core' essence to PR's teaching other than perhaps the idea of inner peace as in the book title 'Peace is Possible'. However essentially this is just a mission statement or slogan and, as Revera pointed out, it sheds no light in isolation, on how exactly what Rawat's teachings are. PatW (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I would endorse such a statement, if it can be sourced sensibly. And "peace" was always synonym with "inner peace", as there can be no other in the view of Knowledge.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems we might have a problem with those sources. I am too busy with business right now to do it justice, but one of the most respected and certainly the most recent source, the sociologist Stephen J. Hunt, claims that the "major focus" of Maharaji is on the experience of "stillness, peace and contentment within the individual" and defines Knowledge as "the techniques to obtain them." Maybe we can find a way to refer to selfless service and satsang that doesn't contradict this. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC) The latter ref above also refers to Service, Satsang and Darshan as the "tenets of the DLM", which might further complicate things for us. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Stephen J. Hunt has completely confirmed what I said. He's talking about the Knowledge techniques, Satsang, Service and Darshan. Where's the problem? Unless you find a source that elaborates how the current terminology differs then surely it'd be quite appropriate to insert this info practically verbatim. Besides this article shouldn't just describe Rawat's present choice of words; readers should equally be informed of the terminology he used for most of his life. BTW your choice of words 'Selfless Service' is misleading and weasely. Rawat was absolutely clear about his definition of service and explained in no uncertain terms that he meant service to HIM through the channels he set up. Selfless service to anything else was not going to help you in your path of Knowledge. There was a DLM publication which published a satsang of his actually called 'The Definition of Service' where he said this. PatW (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Pat. Still, selfless service is something essential that the master demands on the path of Knowledge. Try to blend your ego into his service, and you'll see why. The rest of the world is not so finicky at that, as long as you do what you're told. The world will not teach you selflessness, it has no reason to and it doesn't really care. Selfless service can only come from love. No good to do selfless service, when you hate everybody.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that Rawats definition of service was that it had to include an element of service to him. EG. He now considers giving to charities that he has set up as service. Correct? Would giving to other charities count equally as service in the path of Rawat's Knowledge? I don't think so. That was certainly the distinction he was driving at in the speech I referred to above. Service had to be through the channels he set up and, contrary to what you say, it was nice but not essential to be feeling 'egoless or loving'. These qualities would come through the practice of Service (strictly via his organisation or to him directly) in tandem with Satsang, Meditation and Darshan whenever possible. That was the formula. Service, by his definition, was essentially NOT a state of mind (this is apparently a new emphasis) it was a clearly defined path of action. In fact it was taught that it WAS indeed good to do service when you 'hated everybody' because it would get you out of that frame of mind! Of course this recipe for learning selflessness also works fine outside the masters sphere of influence. And of course there are plenty of people in the world who demonstrate selfless care who know nothing of Rawat. Here's a question- Does 'Service' (as meant by Rawat as a part of his formula for Knowledge) have to involve an actual connection to him or his organisation, or can it be any action done in a particular state of consciousness? If the latter, what should that state of consciousness be?PatW (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A state of consciousness can hardly be described, only felt. We assume we have felt all the posible states of consciousness, but yoga has been saying for thousands of years that there is a high and unimaginable state of consciousness that few in percentage bu many in figures have experienced. Prem Rawat did not invent this. Nor his father. Nor his father's guru...--PremieLover (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any value in trying to continue with this, we have gone this road so many times before. Apparently in England and the US, the World Welfare Association, which Prem Rawat started internationally in 1972, never became well known. In Australia it was large, and a popular way for people to plug in. One of my first service experiences was washing dishes for Meals on Wheels, and that was entirely in fulfillment of Prem Rawats's advice to do something to help feed the hungry, though I do recall that DLM officials were openly contemptuous of people using their energies in this way. Bob Mishler was lecturing on the great opportunity we all had to "join the DLM on a career level", and with hindsight I have no doubt that they all saw charity work as a diversion of energy from the structure they were trying to build. Now TPRF is continuing this challenge; it is not a whole new thing. I have no idea what you mean by "a particular state of consciousness", unless it just means having a desire to do something worthwhile in your life. During the recent Queensland floods, a group of us worked pretty much day and night to save people's belongings and wash their homes down afterwards. I don't think anyone saw this as anything but "service", though no one mentioned the word. And of course, many hundreds of folk who probably never heard of Maharaji turned out to help, too. It was a heartwarming experience for all concerned, pretty much the opposite of what I am experiencing right now, trying to pick through the dirt that Englishmen apparently created for themselves some 40 years ago. If you can't supply good 2ndary sources that will help this article, then I won't engage with you again. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If by 'Some Englishmen' you're having a dig at me. 40 years ago I was 14 and never heard of Prem Rawat. I'm happy with the Hunt references as 2ndary sources. Shall we add a little sentence using those?PatW (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say "some Englishmen", please quote me more carefully. I said "Englishmen" and it was nothing to do with you. I was writing about the way Western people in 1971 bent what Prem Rawat was saying into their own cultural (or counter-cultural) shape, and if The World Welfare Association was never even incorporated in the UK, as you suggest it wasn't, then that puts them high on my personal list of benders. Hunt's writings are still problematic, in that they don't specifically talk about Service, Satsang and Meditation, as we would like them to. Stephen J. Hunt describes Rawat's major focus as being on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures and the process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full. They claim that Rawat's authority comes from the nature of his teachings and their benefit to the individual. The Teachings of Prem Rawat article already gives most of this quote, though I am happy to add some more to this page as well if editors see that as fitting. Rumiton (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked again at the Teachings of Prem Rawat page and I recall now that WWB had pointed out that Service, Satsang and Meditation were only specifically referred to in a DLM context. As there was no apparent evidence that they were ever part of Prem Rawat's personal teachings, they did not belong in a page titled Prem Rawat. Check the Talk Page. Unless there are new sources that link these teachings directly with him, we probably cannot proceed. (No matter how clearly we know that they were and are, indeed, his teachings.) Rumiton (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My God, what a discussion. Prem Rawat did not invent the words Satsang and Darshan nor the concept of Service, again these are things thousands of years old, you have them in the Baghavad Gita, and respected yogis and gurus have repeated them for thousands of years. The question here is not if this belongs to Prem Rawat's teachings, of course it does, as Rumiton and all premies know, the question is if that can be mentioned here or not, funny question if it is the core of his teachings plus the core of yoga teachings for thousands of years, this discussion site is as surrealistic as Dali. Can't some people here just read a little more yoga? Paramahansa Yogananda is the best for me, he did not write for Indians, but for the Western Homo Intelectualis. He did it perfect :-)--PremieLover (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ANOTHER EVENT FOR DEBATE

Hello cyberbrothers. Here is another event that you may use for your interesting debates and eventual inclusion or rejection. Best regards.

http://www.tprf.org/en/component/content/article/53-message-of-peace/384-prem-rawat-receives-the-freedom-of-the-city-of-london --PremieLover (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary reference for this and many similar events, then I am sure we can refer to them. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interested editors can watch a slightly shortened video of this speech and introductions here. The subject appears to have, as usual, and true to his stated intentions, managed to avoid any mention of this event in the press, which makes it a bit hard for us Wikipedia editors, but watching this should at least lead some to question the claim that is sometimes made, that Prem Rawat's relevance ceased in about 1980. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely, this may be an earlier occasion to the Freedom of City speech. But that only accentuates the significance of what the subject is doing. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7449944.html as logged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations --Ivoofcharteswidow (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So here our original research tells us that:

1. In 2007, the Prem Rawat Foundation made a considerable donation to charity in London.

2. On 31 May 2007, the British tabloid Evening Standard described Prem Rawat as a "cult leader" and said his involvement had "raised eyebrows." (The reputabilty of the Evening Standard, and of British tabloids in general, is questionable. According to its Wikipedia article: On 21 January 2009 Russian businessman and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and son Evgeny Lebedev, now the paper's chairman, agreed to purchase 75.1% of the paper for £1. In May 2009 the paper launched a series of poster ads, each of which prominently featured the word 'Sorry' in the paper's then-masthead font. These ads offered various apologies for past editorial approaches.)

3. On 13 Mar 2008, in honour of TPRF contributions, Prem Rawat was invited to be the key note speaker at an event called "Giving from the Heart" hosted by the Lord Mayor of the City of London at the Guildhall. The Lord Mayor was represented by the Sheriff of London, who introduced Prem Rawat to the audience of "aldermen and distinguished guests."

4. On 16 October 2011, at the Livery Hall, Prem Rawat was granted the Freedom of the City of London. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article says - "During a special ceremony at 'Guildhall' in London, Prem Rawat received the Freedom of the City of London in front of more than 100 distinguished guests. He was nominated for the Freedom of the City in recognition of his 40 years of relentless efforts toward peace, human dignity, and humanitarian work. As the ceremony commenced, Prem Rawat was greeted by a guard of honour before taking the formal oath of admission to the Freedom. The Freedom of the City was presented by the Remembrancer, the most senior law officer of the City of London’s Chamberlain’s Court. The short ceremony was followed by a speech by Prem Rawat and a guest reception at the Livery Hall of Guildhall."Verities (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs Biography

I'm only up to chapter 11, but there has already been 2 mentions of Steve hanging out with a Maharaji in the late 1970's in his autobiography. Unfortunately, due to work/time restraints, I picked up the audio book only, so I could listen to it in the car... which is just a little difficult to use when it comes to citations! But I was wondering if we should have some kind of note about it here, on the one hand it might be notable, on the other hand, it's sorta into the "huh!" trivia category, and maybe not worth mentioning either. And on the third hand (ya, that's right, I went there!), I'm not 100% positive he was referring to our Maharaji, but I'm pretty sure. Anyways, if someone else has the book, and can cite the sections, and we think it's relevant, then, well, you know the drill... submit something minor here for review, and let us rip it to shreds before rejecting it... or something like that ;) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just use the audio book as a source by citing which mile marker or exit number you passed during the respective passages. ;)

"Maharaj Ji"/"Maharaji" isn't an exclusive honorific. It might be best to see it in print before adding it here.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The context should confirm that this was Prem Rawat, I don't think there were any other Maharajis active in America at that time. But in itself it seems rather trivial, made somewhat interesting by Jobs' recent death. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I have been too hasty. What does Jobs say about Prem Rawat? Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Neem Karoli Baba article refers to Jobs as one of that "Maharaj-ji"'s followers. I would thus quite hesitate to attach it here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think if you read it carefully, the article says Jobs travelled to India to meet Neem Baba, but Baba died before he got there. Then he apparently mentions spending time with Prem Rawat some years later. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. We have Jobs already mentioned in an article on a different "Maharaj-Ji" and we have no connection with Jobs as a follower of Prem Rawat. 2. WP:BLP is clear that a reliable source directly connecting Jobs to Prem Rawat would be needed. Since the reference is to "Maharaj-Ji" and the other one is directly connected, it is a long stretch to connect both to Jobs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you rightly. If you mean the article Neem Karoli Baba we are told only that he died in 1973 and that Jobs never met him. Apparently Jobs knew another "Maharaji" in the late 70s. Someone probably needs to read Jobs' book. Rumiton (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get it. There seem to be several titles under the heading Jobs biography. Maelefique, which one are you listening to? Rumiton (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The new one that was just released, here is the Amazon link. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have it in 3-6 weeks. :( The good part is the Aussie dollar is up so it cost me less. :) Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The bad part is someone just e-mailed me that apparently the dates somehow got jumbled up and this is not a reference to Prem Rawat at all. Anyone want to buy a book on a mega-tyrannical US corporate guru? (Not normally my favorite reading material.) Rumiton (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have used amazon look inside (enabled on amazon.co.uk). ;) All mentions (including in the index) seem to be clearly marked as referring to Neem Karoli Baba. --JN466 05:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was relying on an editor here. Maelefique, hang your head in penitence! :-) Ah well, learning more about corporate feasance and malfeasance might be broadening. Rumiton (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't look at me! Oddly, my audio book doesn't have an index to read... :) (*pretty* sure I mentioned it was an audio book... oh ya, look, there it is, right there, just a little less than 6 inches up above :) ) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Steve Jobs traveling to India to meet a guru named Maharaj-Ji (however it's spelled) is relevant or notable to this article. Nobody cares. :):):) Sylviecyn (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation provided

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.[citation needed] Can we remove the citation needed, in the light of refs above to Hunt and to [33]? Rumiton (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Above you quote Hunt as saying: the "major focus" of Maharaji is on the experience of "stillness, peace and contentment within the individual" and defines Knowledge as "the techniques to obtain them." There's nothing about joy in there. I don't see anything about joy in the Geaves chapter either.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read a little further in Hunt you will find: Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy and harmony. I believe the Hunt ref covers this contentious area of joy fairly well. (Sorry, I'm feeling a little flippant tonight.) See my excerpt above, 02:11, 15 October 2011 Rumiton (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha, yes, there is mention of "joy" there. Let's backup a bit. The intro should summarize the text of the article. Here's perhaps the relevant text, from the "Teachings" section.

• In the 80s Rawat eliminated the Indian traditions and parables that had been prominent in his discourses and focused on the meditation techniques. Prem Rawat says that peace resides in everyone and that the quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning within to find contentment and joy. He quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian sources, but rather than relying on scriptures for inspiration and guidance, Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge." The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Before receiving Knowledge, Rawat asks practitioners to promise to give Knowledge a fair chance, to keep in touch with him and not to reveal the techniques to anyone else.

I presume we could use Hunt for the citation here as well. Does the intro material seem like an adequate summary of this text?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look tonight after work. Everything can be improved, and this looks like a good project. Rumiton (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Improvements are good, but let's try to avoid making a big deal about this.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be nothing that months of Requests for Comment, appeals to Reputable Sources Noticeboards and Mediation cannot beat down eventually into a kind of stalemate. Let's try anyway. Rumiton (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just spent some time on this. It now seems to me that the lead is not an adequate summary of the Teachings section, but neither is the section an adequate summary of the sources. It is a rather dull, pedestrian and incomplete rendition of some quite elevated prose. I will try to do better. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't given up, but it is surprisingly difficult. It isn't really controversial, but each source has its own take on the subject and melding them together into a flowing paragraph isn't happening overnight. Still going. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple answer would be to just paste in the intro to the "Teachings" article.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's a pretty good answer. It solves a contradiction I have been wrestling with, where we have Hunt saying Prem Rawat "eliminated" the Indian influences from his discourses, then another source talking about him still quoting from the major religions (including Indian). I still think it could be better, though. Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be a step forward. I have left the refs out of the lead as they cluttered it up, but they remain in the main body.

Lead: The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy. Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, which he claims is accessible through the techniques of meditation which he teaches, and which he calls the Knowledge. Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses.

Body text: Prem Rawat claims that light, love, wisdom and clarity exist within each individual, and that the meditation techniques which he teaches, and which he learned from his father, are a way of accessing them. These techniques are known as the ‘Knowledge’. In his public talks he quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian scriptures, but he relies on this inner experience for inspiration and guidance.

Before they receive the Knowledge, Rawat asks practitioners to promise to give it a fair chance and to stay in touch with him. He also asks that they not reveal the techniques to anyone else, but allow others to prepare to receive the experience for themselves. Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses. Rumiton (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The word knowledge is still overused in the text. If we go with this suggestion I would like to remove a couple of instances. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text above is not what is now been edited into the 'Teachings" section.[34] Did we discard this proposal and make a new one that I missed?   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Electronic vagaries aside, I thought I pasted the text straight across. Rumiton (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I found the word "his" before "inspiration" which wasn't there before. Is that what you mean? Rumiton (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was being proposed as a replacement, not an addition.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It replaced what you called the relevant text, from the "Teachings" section which you highlighted above, not the entire section. That was my understanding. But we can look at improving the whole section as well, if it looks like a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested replacing the "Teachings" sections with the intro from the "Teachings" article, since that is presumably a summary of the teachings. Is there a problem with that? The effect of this recent edit is to double the length of the material.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You suggested that and I found merit with the idea, but also thought it could be improved. That's what I tried to do, bringing the relevant paragraph more into line with sources. As for "doubling the length of the material" I must ask you to read this thread more carefully. I did not add any length, I took away some material that was not earning its keep. This is the diff. [35] You will notice that the word count for this section before I started was 333 words, and when I was done it was 324 words. Rumiton (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that has found assent, I would like to similarly trim back the Teachings article. I can see several repeated sentences there. Getting rid of them and applying some good copy editing would make for a much punchier article. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Friends, I am new at this and transferred my Prem Rawat edit suggestions to my new TALK page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Verities I did not want to add it here since I cover too many topics at once. I did not have an underline and strike option for the edit suggestions, so I used the bold and italic functions instead, to suggest the changes. Please go there and comment. Thanks, Verities (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have replied on your talk page. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks

Hello Cyberbrothers, I have just read the article once more, and I am pleased to see it has improved a lot since I first read it a few years ago, and reacted angrily at the many negative remarks pushed by anti-Prem crusaders. I wish to thank Will Beback for his work for years trying to make it balanced, tackling pro and anti-Prem editors who logically wanted to push the article to their respective sides. His dedication has yielded results. But sorry, Will Beback, I am afraid the identification of "favourable" and "self-serving" is only in your head and not in any dictionnary, so perhaps you honestly try to be impartial, but tend to be anti-Prem. I also want to thank Rumiton and the few premies who have also shown so much patience along years. Still, the statement that there were 7 million premies in 1973 is completely wrong. There were never more than one million practicing premies, present figure, and I guess there is perhaps half million ex-premies more, which means premies who do not practice any more, no matter what they believe. And the opinions of sociologists and other scholars who know nothing about yoga and meditation are still as useful as the opinion of an electronics engineer on Greek art. But thank you all for your work. --PremieLover (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research: In 1974 I met Bob Mishler in Sydney and asked him how many people had received knowledge wordwide. He said: 'No one knows. We are trying to get to the bottom of the Indian millions.' I don't know if anyone ever did, but apparently some researchers accepted the figures, which were certainly inflated. Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Rumiton, I know there are no official figures, I find this a good policy, we do not mind how many, though it is nice to know it is always growing, slow but sure, as I think should be. One mililion is just what I hear from other old premies, and I take as good, though I cannot be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremieLover (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy

In an effort to make this article a bit more un-biased, a section should likely be added about the considerable Criticism and controversy around this figure.

For example, from James Randi's "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural": [Maharaj Ji] promised followers that they would “receive the knowledge” after a period of study and work, during which they donated all their income to him... “Receiving the knowledge” turned out to be a process of seeing “heavenly lights” when pressing on the eyeballs, hearing “blissful music” when the ears were stopped up, tasting “divine nectar” when the head was thrown back with the tongue turned inward, and receiving a mantra nonsense word. The sensory illusions were quite natural and easily understood physiological phenomena.

In 1974 Maharaj Ji married his secretary Marolyn Lois Johnson, who he had discovered was the reincarnation of the ten-armed, tiger riding goddess Durga. His mother revolted against this alliance and tried to regain her former position as female leader of the sect by announcing that her other son, Bal Bhagwan Ji, was thenceforth the divine head of the cult. Disillusionment set in, and in 1975 Maharaj Ji's mother and brother sued him for their share of the wealth that had been accumulated.

both taken from http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Maharaj%20Ji.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.132.13 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do a search in the archives you will find enough refs to Randi to keep you reading for a couple of hours. Basically, he was considered carefully over some time as a reliable source for a living biography and rejected. His description of Rawat as demanding money for the teaching of Knowledge is contradicted by every other source, which tells us that, apart from a couple of individual instructors who took it upon themselves to charge people, it was (and is) always taught for free. His description of the Rawat family court case is similarly sloppy and misleading, compared to the better sources we have used. Editors' comments on Randi included "Encylopaedia Britannica would not cite Randi, however popular he may be; he is an academic irrelevance in the study of religion" and "...why use a source that describes someone as "an overweight teenage guru"? If someone referred to Aretha Franklin as a "fat old singer" decent people would be outraged." Rumiton (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

--PremieLover (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)== Answer to “CRITICISM AND CONTROVERSY” ==

For whoever has written the post “Criticism and Controversy”: sorry to tell you brother, you seem to be a complete ignorant on yoga and meditation. The techniques Prem Rawat teaches can be traced back for thousands of years, from the Bhagavad Gita, through respected yoguis of every age, to Yogananda in the 20th century. It is funny to see how although Yogananda and others said that you have to practice for 1 or 2 hours a day (Yogananda said on Sundays 5 extra hours) for many years before you see progress, (though meditation changes the brain from the first day, it is not shown on the conscious level for "some" time, according to Yogananda, and in yoga this can mean many years,) some people, who have read or been told the techniques, just try for a few minutes, or seconds, and believe they have then the authority to declare the techniques useless or easily explainable. They know better in a few seconds than thousands of yoguis who practiced for thousands of hours for thousands of years.

The University of Leiden, The Netherlands, and others in the US, have studied the difference in the brain of people who have done meditation for many years and others who haven’t, and have seen clear differences, thy say the brain seems to be completely “reorganised”. These were not people practicing Prem Rawat’s techniques, but similar ones from yoga, there are dozens. What happens when you practice a technique for thousands of hours is something no scientist can know, only the subject knows. No TC Scan, microscope nor any instrument can reach the subject’s consciousness, only EFFECTS on the brain are detectable and measurable, whether chemical, electric, etc. James Randi is another ignorant writing about what he does not know or knows very little. A blind man trying to guide blind men. This is as old as history.

Advanced yoguis know the BODY better than doctors, as they can do things doctors once considered impossible, like changing the heart rate and body temperature at will, among others. They know the MIND better than psychologists and psychiatrists, again they have been observed to emit the 4 kinds of brain waves at will, also among other once impossible things. And they also know the SOUL and God better than all religions and theologians, who have simply read scriptures that they don’t fully understand, because 1) they have had no inner experience, and 2) they have not read yoga.

A good example is that the confusions on the Bible’s interpretation, for 2,000 years or more if we include the Old Testament, until Yogananda explained it in “The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ” in 2004. Dozens of different interpretations that led to dozens of different Christian (and Jewish) sects, all pretending to know what they only believe. Theologians believe. Advanced yoguis KNOW through EXPERIENCE. Big difference.--PremieLover (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

i still don't understand the whole yoga crap you're trying to make a connection with Rawat Surdas (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the sources in the Techniques of Knowledge article, you may see that the "Knowledge" he teaches is actually ancient Raj Yoga. It isn't anyone trying to "make a connection." Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

so why ins't raja yoga mentioned in the article? What is this ? Original research? Come on I thought you know it better. Read Vivekananda so you can get a glimpse of what raja yoga is and stop dreaming, please Surdas (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying "please" but you are still not quite there. The fundamental quality that Wikipedia demands in editors is civility, as you have been told before on your talk page. I see that your Wikipedia experience is limited to this article, but this is a point that you need to grasp. Rudeness will not create the fight you seem to be looking for, and could get you excluded from editing. As it happens I have read a great deal of what was written by and about the major 19th Century expatriate Indian gurus, and a lot of their teachings are now on Wikipedia and well sourced, so it is not at all original research. The term Raja Yoga has recently become problematic, as it is being used to describe practices that are not those traditionally taught (especially see Brahma Kumaris article). Prem Rawat's Techniques of Knowledge appear to be very close to the traditional teachings, as they are centered on the breath, sounds and nectar.

For the sound connection, look at the Surat Shabd Yoga and Sant Mat articles, both linked in the Techniques of Knowledge article.

From Raja Yoga: Yogananda says that Krishna refers to Kriya Yoga in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter IV, Verse 29).

From Kriya Yoga Offering inhaling breath into the outgoing breath, and offering the outgoing breath into the inhaling breath, the yogi neutralizes both these breaths; he thus releases the life force from the heart and brings it under his control.

From Pranayama Some scholars distinguish between the hatha yoga and raja yoga varieties of pranayama, with the former variety usually prescribed for the beginner. According to Taimni, hatha yogic pranayama involves manipulation of pranic currents through breath regulation for bringing about the control of chitta-vrittis and changes in consciousness, whereas raja yogic pranayama involves the control of chitta-vrittis by consciousness directly through the will of the mind. Students qualified to practice pranayama are therefore always initiated first in the techniques of hatha pranayama.

From Yogananda Yoga primarily works with the energy in the body through the science of pranayama or energy-control. Prana also means ‘breath.’ Yoga teaches how to still the mind through breath-control and attain higher states of awareness. Quote. Yogananda: Through the performance of Khecarī mudrā, touching the tip of the tongue to the uvula, or "little tongue," (or placing it in the nasal cavity behind the uvula), that divine life-current draws the prana from the senses into the spine and draws it up through the chakras to Vaishvanara (Universal Spirit), uniting the consciousness with spirit.

Quote from a Kriya Yoga site: [36] The word Kriya is composed of two syllables, kri and yâ. In Sanskrit, kri means karma dhatu - action of the elements, and yâ means Soul or Atma. The word Kriya indicates action of the Soul or prâna karma. The first and most important action of the Soul is breath.

The word yoga comes from Sanskrit yuj which means union. The union of the individual soul with Spirit.

Kriya Yoga is a method to attain the union of breath and Soul in each inhalation and exhalation. Iswara pranidhana means that by constantly observing the breath which enters and leaves the body, through practice one will come to the formless state. Then you remain in the divine light enabling yourself to achieve constant nirvana or liberation in your lifetime.

The Knowledge Prem Rawat teaches is yoga if anything is. Rumiton (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are heavily refering to Yogananda, obviously not to Vivekanand whom i mentioned, but nonetheless Yogananda is not in the lineage(Parampara) of Rawat( if he happens to be so) so something must be wrong with his Kriya, since there is only one perfect master in a time. Can you explain? I have read Gita as well and there is not much about the Knowledge technics. So if Yogananda claims that it contains his Kriya , so did Hans and thousands of others i guess. And by the way you are stating that knowledge is a subject of eastern esoteric tradition and by just changing names it will never become universal like Rawat claims. Surdas (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogananda referred to Vivekananda many times, and certainly appeared to regard himself as carrying on the same work, though in a different lineage. He made it a lot simpler. To me, with his demands for perfection, Vivekananda made spiritual progress seem almost impossible. The idea that there could be only one "perfect master" at a time came out of India with Prem Rawat. I don't know how long it had been going on there, but Prem Rawat dropped it about 35 years ago. To paraphrase, he is saying, "If you like what I offer and you want my help, let's go for it." Regarding the guru-shishya paramparās and panths, if you have a free afternoon and feel like going nuts, try to sort them out. The more you learn, the more tangled and obscure it gets. I am not sure what your last sentence means. The techniques were definitely Indian-esoteric; Prem Rawat made them internationally and easily available. Has he made them "universal"? Rumiton (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion on yoga doesn't belong on this page. It's taking up too space and nothing more than personal opinions. Anyone want to remove it? Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit more than personal opinions, it contains a number of links to other articles with sourced information on the yogic background of Prem Rawat's teachings. Though some of it is discursive, as you say, I would rather see it archived where it can be searched in the future. Rumiton (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's father held the title of "Yogirai", or King of Yogis, for some reason, and in his early years, as a teenager, Prem Rawat quoted yogis and used yoga concepts quite often in his speeches, even though he later said yoga is not necessary or related with knowledge, simply because most people think yoga is a kind of Indian gimnastics (Hatha Yoga postures). I used to find yoga books in the sports departments of bookshops in Franco times. But yoga is the essence of Knowledge and Knowledge is the essence of Yoga.

I kindly reccommend you to read "God talks to Arjuna (Bhagavhad Gita)" and "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ" by Paramahansa Yogananda. If after that you still cannot understand that Jesus was a yogi and Prem Rawat is a Yogi, than you can't undersatand anything. I know it is strange to see a yogi wearing a suit and necktie, but if evertything was easy, obvious and evident for everybody, this world would be incredibly boring, and God likes to make complicated games, not to confuse us, but to entertain us, said Yogananda, and confusion is the inevitable early part of the game to generate the joy of solving the riddle. :-) comment added by PremieLover (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ahhh, i see, Rawat says Knowledge is NOT yoga, but you know it better. So thank god you have realized that it IS yoga and we should't take Rawat too serious,makes me chuckle thanks Surdas (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem Surdas, you can chuckle as long as you want instead of reading yogananda, but you will never find the riddle alone. You can hear and see the story of Surdas with nice pictures and Spanish subtitles, good to learn Spanish, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjweycQ4zw&feature=related. And no, I don't know better than Prem Rawat, but better than you for sure, sorry to tell you without diplomacy. All premies who have studied yoga know it too, which are a minority, most are not interested, which is not important, they don't need it, they are doing yoga without knowing it, mainly Pranayama dnd Bhakti Yoga.. :-) --PremieLover (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to quote from primary sources, context is everything. But it's way better not to. Leave that to the reputable secondary sources. Rumiton (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Curious Question

Is there anyone who know how many words of discussions has this article generated (aprox.) and how is this figure in comparison with other articles? Perhaps Will Beback, who probably know best than anyone, can give us his estimation if this is complicated to count. Considering his effort at accuracy I would accept his estimation as good as a statistic based on count. But also from any other Wikiexpert :-). Thanks--PremieLover (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You can count as well as I can. Check the archives. Don't forget the talk pages of the closely related pages, which are also extensive. However the topic has been much quieter in the past year.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a statistic for the number of edits to this page: 18,590 as of July. That made it the 29th most edited talk page, just between talk:Jesus and talk:Catholic Church. Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi, Will Beback. Thank you very much despite your scolding me for not searching myself. Yes I could have searched for a way to count, but it would have taken me much longer than you, who knows mucho more wikipedia, I have little time. I would have not found the statistic saying it is the 29th most edited talk page. That satisfies my curiosity. I had to laugh to know that Prem Rawat is right between Jesus and the Catholic Church. Perhaps not only in that statistc. :-) The statistic is like a joke. Again, I appreciate it. (Except the scolding, sorry, but no problem, I am used, I have been married twice, and you should know my sister :-)--PremieLover (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to do it faster than you, but I already have other things to do.   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you scold me again. you are worse than my sister. Sorry, Will Beback, give me your bank account or addres to fpedrero@hetnet.nl and I will send you a Christmas gift. Honestly.

Hi PremieLover...This article ranks as one of the most contested/edited articles on WP not because of Rawat's notability but as a result of the battles here. Even Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) recognised that WP's reliability was being drawn into ill-repute by the 'over-zeal' of premies here.PatW (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read that Rumiton? Did you know we are so terrible? Now I feel so guilty, even though I have not written so much nor so zealously, that this time after I tell my psychiatrist he is going to start shouting at me again :-)

"Over-zealous" is one of the milder of PatW's insults. I can almost accept it. But get yourself a new psychiatrist. From my experience, the ones who shout at you always end up betraying your confidences. Rumiton (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas everyone!PatW (talk)

Causes

Rumiton, you know how excited people get when anyone arbitrarily adds data to the article without any discussion here, not sure why you would do that. After tracking down the reliable sources info (thanks for the no-link?) there was no one that commented on it other than Will, who clearly did not say it was reliable, or more to the point, that it was relevant. Further, I looked on the causes website, and while I did see the number you quoted, on this page I see a drastically different, and *clearly* not notable number asserted. In fact, even with your numbers, that's less than 1 dollar per person, and the Causes website also makes it clear that the number they use includes inactive members, and/or past members. So that doesn't seem like a very reliable number for any use either. Even if we accept your numbers, are they enough to be considered noteworthy? I'm not so sure. Other Thoughts? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Maelefique, now you have confused everything; not sure why you would do that. :) First, I think you are confusing the standard required for a subject to have a Wikipedia article with the standard required for the inclusion of information in the article. The standard for an article is notability; enough notice needs to have been taken of the subject. The standard for information is verifiability; information needs to be well sourced and checkable. So the information that a biography contains does not need to be notable. For example, the Bill Clinton article exists mostly because Clinton was the 42nd President of the US, but in the article we learn many other things, such as he attended the Ramble Elementary School and his mother studied nursing. None of these are notable facts, but they are somewhat interesting and verifiable. I would say the performance of the charity that Prem Rawat founded easily falls into this category. When people donate to TPRF, they can choose between Food for People (providing food and welfare to impoverished and wartorn areas), SocialVest (appears to be supporter of many secondary charities) and Peace Education (Prem Rawat's video production, public events, prison programs etc). The numbers I gave are the totals, and they ARE rather noteworthy because Causes has highlighted TPRF as a charity that has one of the 12 highest rates of contributions from its supporters. The figures you gave of 3734 people giving $114,176.66 (which BTW is a very high donation of $30.58 each) apply just to the Food for People section of TPRF contributions. The grand totals today are the ones I gave: 475,974 people giving $397,304.

By the way, when in response to your assertion that Prem Rawat's popularity and significance peaked nearly 40 years ago with an event attended by about 20,000 people, I posted links to recent videos showing him internationally addressing many hundreds of thousands, I heard only an eery silence. Have you been on holidays? (This is called Assuming Good Faith. It is not called Being Sarcastic. Goodness me, no.) Rumiton (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

From the article, "The 1972 Hans Jayanti, an annual festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[36] was attended by over 500,000 people", and I think it's hard to argue that the millions of followers he had in the late 70's has been surpassed. Yes, I was on holidays, and it always seems that when I go away, someone does something weird. :)

We in the Organisation have junior acolytes known as "drones" to do menial tasks. I have had three of them watching your house 24/7. When they see you heading off with your fishing rod tied to the roof of your car they let me know, and I rush information on the performance of TPRF into the article. I am sure you understand. Rumiton (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All of what you say about TPRF might be relevant, for an article about TPRF. Other than founding it and filming a couple of videos, which we already acknowledged in the article, does PR have anything to do with what that program does? Is he personally responsible for fund raising? Management? Negotiating deals with suppliers? Distribution? Any of the day to day operations? Not all of them certainly, but any of those? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, with Words of Peace showing in 88 countries and huge international events happening three times a year, I am not having any trouble in claiming that he is reaching more people now than ever before. Regarding TPRF, he founded it and features as its spokesman. Without his participation, it might just be one of many charities, many of which close their doors each year. But you might be right that TPRF should have its own article. I notice that most of the other 11 non-profits featured by Causes either have their own Wikipedia article, or are prominently mentioned in articles about their founders. Eric Ding as founder of the Campaign for Cancer Prevention is an example. The charity's success on Causes is featured in his article. Rumiton (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If things are noteworthy then they're likely to have been noted somewhere else. In the case of Wikipedia articles, I see a few which mention Causes as a company but only two which mention the actual charities.[37] One of those uses the New York Times as its source: Eric Ding. The other is about a person of questioned notability, and it simply says he leads a group there, with no source: Tochukwu Ipere. So it'd be better to find a secondary source for this information. The problem with primary sources is that there's no filter to help us decide what's noteworthy. Without that filter, we could report all sorts of details from the TPRF's tax forms, etc., which might be true but not significant.

As for videos showing large crowds, they are ambiguous. I suppose there might be videos showing sound check guys addressing large crowds too, but we'd have no way of proving the crowds were there to see him. So raw video is not a good source.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Causes is "noteworthy" as it has its own Wikipedia article, but inclusion in Causes is only a statement of the non-profit's existence, their analysis of the np's success is more relevant. See above for Eric Ding. The article adds to information from the NYT with information from Causes. I understand about primary sources. Thank you for telling me again. Rumiton (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a suitable addition and should have been discussed here and agreed upon prior to making the edit. The "Causes" facebook page isn't a reliable source. Also, just because there was an exchange on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (which discussion didn't resolve anything, and was between two involved editors only) doesn't mean the edit shouldn't have been discussed here first. This edit was appropriately deleted from the article and I would argue to keep it out. Btw, Rumiton, Bill Clinton was a two term president of the United States, therefore, anything about his life is probably notable, with tons of proper sources, unlike Prem Rawat, who is virtually unknown, not to mention this a controversial topic here. Good try, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Happy New Year! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Virtually unknown. In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million...His message is currently distributed in eighty-eight countries in print and on video, and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels such as Canal Infinito in South America, Channel 31 in Australia, and Dish Network in the USA...in the eight years prior to May 2008, Key Six sessions were attended by 365,237 people in 67 countries. Happy new year to you, too. Rumiton (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It took 8 years to have just over 350,000 people spend a few hours to do The Keys sessions? How is that more popular than having a few million *live* in your ashrams on a day-to-day 24/7-for-Prem basis? -- Maelefique...(will fix sig when I get home) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.169.136 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that millions of people ever lived in ashrams? Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

haha, that's an excellent question, I gotta quit drinking at work! I have no idea where that number came from, and I know that's wrong. :) (lol, too bad though, it sounded so good when I wrote it! :) ) I did see somewhere that he hosted some event in India in the 70's that they claimed had a million people attend though, and compared to that, 350,000+ over 8 years still isn't very impressive. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I only ever drank before going on duty once, when I was a ship's navigator. We were in the middle of the Indian Ocean with nothing around to run into, but the results were not impressive. My head was spinning one way and the compass another. :D But your figure of a million people seated at one event (if that is what you meant) is not right either, it just isn't possible. A couple of years ago he did a meeting in India where 450,000 showed up (the figure was verified by aerial photography.) This maxed out the venue, and I saw on YouTube where he said he won't do such large meetings again, as that one took 6 hours to fill and empty the stadium and disrupted the whole transport system of the city. And just over 350,000 people spend a few hours to do The Keys sessions? It isn't a few hours, from memory it is about 40 hours, and represents a considerable commitment. These numbers are real and I think impressive and need to be respected. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, if there are reliable source cites. AndroidCat (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources have been accepted for the article, and most of the figures are already shown there. This discussion was mainly a comparison of today's numbers for people being reached by Prem Rawat's message and those invloved in the 70's, to dispel the impression that some have gained that he was only notable back then. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I can read. AndroidCat (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Here was my source for that:

At the age of 12 in 1970, Prem Rawat addressed one of the largest rallies ever held anywhere in the world, with contemporary sources claiming that over one million people attended the gathering in Delhi. In front of this vast crowd Rawat proclaimed his personal divinity, and stated that he had come to deliver India from its materialism, the speech becoming known as Rawat's 'Peace Bomb'.

Also, take a look at the media attention from back then, compared to now, yes I know he tries to shy away from the media, but if he was as popular now as he was then, there would be lots of "unauthorized" mentions of him and books etc, but there isn't. I don't want to marginalize the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) worth of donations or any of the other work he's currently doing, but it just quite simply doesn't seem as notable as what happened before. Other than a few self-released press releases and a biography he hired someone to do, there isn't a lot of notability out there, and I don't buy the fact that it's because he shies away from the press, if he was as noteworthy now, the press would publish articles/books about him whether he wanted to be a part of it or not just like they did when he was at his (somehow now) disputed peak. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, neutrality on this subject is a valuable thing, but yours is coming into serious question. Looking at your user contributions, I can see no edit you have made in the last three years that is not Prem Rawat-related, and they nearly all tended towards a negative POV. Correct me if I missed something. You have linked to a very bilious site (yes, thank you, I will delete it) and described a biography written by a writer with a body of other biographies (admittedly not a lot) as a work he "hired someone to do". What is your source for that, apart from the poisonous site you referred to? Did Grace Slick hire Cagan to do her biography? I think repeating this garbage is getting very close to libel. And "a few self-released press releases"? Hundreds of them from TPRF and WoPG. Many refer to huge international events he has been holding biannually for about the last 25 years. Do you seriously believe they have not occurred? Did you look at the videos? What about Will's suggestion (tongue in cheek) that he might have been working as a sound technician? The Peace Bomb parade was a public event held in the streets of Delhi. There was no way of accurately knowing how many people were there, nor how many were showing any committment to his message by attending. Today there is. Accurate figures are available by aerial photography, backed up by videos. I agree that 2ndary sources are neeeded for inclusion, but I don't think the lack of them should blind us to what is clearly happening. Rumiton (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Wow. For the Umpteenth time, I only use the account for this topic, I have another account that has real world information about me that I use for all other edits, and I have said several times if some admin wants to run a checkuser (or whatever it's called) on me to see the activity in my other account, I have no problem giving them the details, I just don't need the semi-retardednesss that goes on here sometimes to spill into the rest of my life (and FYI, that situation has never altered since my very first edit on this article, when I was pretty sure this whole thing was going to be contentious). So I'm just going to assume you forgot about all the times that numbnuts used to say things like this about me and how I responded in the exact same way, since it's been a while since someone attempted to claim that about me. As to whether you think my edits are negative or not, I'll leave that to the readers who feel it's worth looking at, but I disgree. As I disagree with minimizing the negative aspects of his past while glorifying the positive, as was the case for a long time in these articles.

Moving on to the actual issue, where you not here when we had many long discussions about Cagan? It seems to me that we ended up with a situation where she was hired to write the book by a company that had strong ties to PR, and the facts were so skewed it was eventually decided it could only be a source for non-contentious info. So I'm not sure that's a plus. I don't personally know Grace Slick, so I can't answer that one. Libel? Now you're getting a little wound up... have him sue me then. If I release a trillion billion press releases about what I did today, does that make me noteworthy? No, and that's my point. I don't really care how many his organizations release about themselves, that doesn't make them noteworthy either, as you well know. And just so I'm clear, now you're opposed to that site I referred to earlier because it gives PR too much credit for the Peace Bomb attendance? Sounds libelous...Let me know when those secondary sources that count his aerial photography pics get published please. (oh, and no, didn't look at the videos, even if it looks like a huge crowd I know it's extremely difficult to judge any kind of numbers, crowds move around and are hard to count, I'm sure there was a lot of ppl there, but again, I just don't see how relevant that is if no secondary sources exist). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you are not a Single Purpose Account, you are a Multiple Purpose Multiple Account. Can you give me archive diffs to show a consensus was reached that Cagan was hired to write the book by a company that had strong ties to PR? At the time, I agreed that Cagan's book was a poor source for anything but uncontentious information. It is badly written and "from the hand of God," that is to say, it cites no sources and claims omniscience. It also denigrated his opponents in a way I found abrasive and unfair. I disliked it intensely. But please, in the name of neutrality, DO look at the times and vids I posted above. I think you might find them an eye-opener. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This covers it, but feel free to tag it for your personal use however you like. Oh, and also fyi , my other account still has never edited any PR articles either. And no, I'm not going through the archives to find that point about Cagan either, you can go re-read all that Cagan discussion again if you like. Focus on the part that has to do with the company that published the book, if I recall correctly, aside from strong ties to PR, they had also published either nothing else, or almost nothing else, other than that publicity bio. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wasted an hour looking through the archives, without finding anything approaching a consensus. If you can't or won't find it yourself we can assume it doesn't exist, which makes your allegation look rather malicious. Cagan's book is not self-published. The author is the source here, not the publisher, and she has other well-researched biographies under her belt. But it fails the reliable sources test for contended information on several other counts, the most relevant of which (if I read the Wikipedia essay correctly) is I DON'T LIKE IT. (See above for details.) Rumiton (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, much of the discussion of the book took place on the mediation pages, not these talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood I think, I didn't say there was consensus that we couldn't use it, I said that we didn't have consensus *to* use it (with some minor exceptions). Actually, I never talked about consensus, you did. I just pointed out she's a bad source for various reasons we previously discussed, which in your hunt you also rediscovered it seems. And please stop with the malicious/libellous comments, they're starting to make me think you're warming up for jr's return. Mighty River Press, as mentioned below, was only one of the problems with this book. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You said: we ended up with a situation where she was hired to write the book by a company that had strong ties to PR, and the facts were so skewed it was eventually decided it could only be a source for non-contentious info. That is saying there was a consensus that Cagan was a hired author. There was not such a consensus and could not be. She was the source, who Mighty River Press were, is irrelevant. Who is jr? I agree about using the book only for non-contentious stuff, and we are starting to repeat ourselves. Let's drop it. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we agree to disagree on that, because imo, Mighty River Press is NOT irrelevant to this discussion, and I don't agree that what I said means there was a consensus, but I can see how you could read it that way as one possibility. On the other hand, who is Jr., that's irrelevant. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More information on Mighty River Press can be found on --deleted since rumiton found it vulnerable to internet attacks--, since this is not a link pleas dont delete it. It is just for your information Surdas (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We should delete it anyway. My security program blocked it with the message: DANGEROUS PAGE. Trend Micro Maximum Security has confirmed that this website can transmit malicious software or has been involved in online scams or fraud. Rumiton (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I viewed the page text only on a linux box for safety, I didn't look into the above allegation, but the text on that page seems accurate regarding the parts that I do already know about, and with enough info for verification of the parts I don't personally already know about, and it essentially arrives at the same conclusion as us; Mighty River press is just a way to get PR to have his own bio published. At least, that's how I read it. If someone wants to read the text, I will be more than happy to point you to a text file I can put up on another website for download (or whatever), as I think someone might get a little excited if I just paste it all here :) . -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, this is beginning to look like a forum. Unless anyone is discussing specific edits we should bring this thread to a close.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another European Parliament event invites Pram Rawat

Hello Cyberbrothers. This time we have a second independent source, PR NEWSWIRE, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-of-peace-prem-rawat-134817323.html, also commented in THE STREET, http://www.thestreet.com/story/11328396/2/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-of-peace-prem-rawat.html, so there is no self-serving this time, I hope.

The information is also of course mentioned in the “official page” of the Prem Rawat foundation:http://www.tprf.org/en/component/content/article/129-translation-in-progress/402-european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-of-peace-prem-rawat. European Parliament, Brussels, December 1, 2011—

The 1st Vice President of the European Parliament, Gianni Pittella, hosted an international conference titled: “Peace and Well-being, addressing the founding values of the European Union” on November 28. Gianni Pittella and keynote speaker Prem Rawat were introduced by Dr. Anthony Seldon, political historian, author, journalist, and current Headmaster of Wellington College (UK). Referring to Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat, Dr. Seldon commented, “Peace—what a wonderful country to be Ambassador for.”

I hope this time it qualifies for some mention like “Prem Rawat has been also invited to speak in the European Parliament to various groups in two occasions”. If not, I propose a deal. Each 3 speeches by Prem Rawat in the European Parliament qualify for one mentione in the article. If Prem Rawat ever speaks at the General Assembly of the United Nations I am sure there will be editors opposing that this be mentioned in the article. Shall we bet? Best regards and best wishes to all.--PremieLover (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid PR Newswire is not an independent source, they just publish press releases for businesses, foundations etc. However, the Malaysian National News Agency is a recognised source of news that impacts on Malaysia. Since Words of Peace runs in Malaysia, they ran the following article: [38] Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a poorly plagiarized version of the press release, with the paragraphs rearranged.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting take, Will, but I don't think it will fly. Reputable sources don't "plagiarise" primary sources. They look at them, enquire about the statements they contain, then put their reputation on the line if they decide to use them. Nearly all information on any subject starts out being primary. The only difference between us, as editors, and reputable sources is that we are nobodies, and if we did this research it would be plagiarism or "original research" and unacceptable. They have, by their hard work and willingness to accept the consequence, earned the right to do original research and have it be respected. I don't think there is any doubt that Bernama is a reputable source. Check their treatment of other subjects if you are wondering. Rumiton (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to whom is the Malaysian National News Agency a "reputable source"? As for the plagiarism, look for yourself - there aren't any sentences in ti which don't appear in the original press release. Sources can be reliable in some aspects and unreliable in others. (that's a lesson which Jossi tuaght us many times.) Pushing these poor quality promotional pieces isn't very helpful.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps any source can have a bad day, but if you check the Bernama WP article you will see it is the Malaysian government's official news agency, with many overseas correspondents. I think you have misunderstood my remarks on plagiarism. Press releases by businesses or foundations are intended to be reproduced. It is a measure of the subject's notability when they are. In any case, this is not a contentious claim. A document called a "Pledge to Peace" was signed in the European Parliament buildings by certain people. It is a simple statement of an occurrence, no value judgements either way. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I would like touse some of this information. I have no problem attributing it. "According to the Malaysian National News Agency..." Rumiton (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The proper attribution would be "According to a WPOG press release..." The fact that apparently no European press sources have picked up on this is indicative of its lack of notability. At most, we might combine this with the other speaking engagement and say something like, "Rawat was invited to speak at EP events in 2010 and 2011."   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Will, I can go along with that. I have 53 WoPG and TPRF notifications and press releases in front of me covering global conferences and public speaking engagements Prem Rawat has attended over the last ten years. Shall we add them to the article? Or would you rather we stay with reputable secondary sources such as Bernama? Rumiton (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's not a serious question.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernama is the Malaysian equivalent of the British BBC. It is an entirely serious question. Rumiton (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Says who? But my comment was in response to your suggestion that we use 53 press releases as sources for this article.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not being facetious. If you want to ignore the source (Bernama) and attribute the coverage to a press release, then what is there to disqualify all the other press releases? Regarding the equivalence between the BBC and Bernama, we have The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary and BERNAMA is a news agency of the government of Malaysia. It is an autonomous body placed under the Information, Culture and Communications Ministry. Given the differences in the two governments, the similarities are quite precise. I hope you will see that there are no grounds for considering Bernama as anything but a reputable source. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Being a government sponsored does not automatically convey reliability on a news source. Tass was government sponsored in the Soviet eras, but I don't think many people outside the USSR considered it reliable.

2. Regardless of the news agency, it's still a press release. Reprinting it does not increase its reliability.

3. Apparently, no news source in Europe considered this speech important enough to report. Instead, a news agency on the otherside of the world picked up on a press releasem, but didn;t think it important enough to even bother rewriting the release, much less do independent reporting.

4. As I wrote before, the most that we should do with this is combine it with the other speaking occasion, something like, "Rawat was invited to speak at EP events in 2010 and 2011."   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Are you seriously comparing modern Malaysia with Communist Russia?

2. Reprinting a press release does indeed bestow notability and reputability. The organisation that reprints it is putting its good reputation on the line, so that if it turns out to be wrong, they look bad. That is what reliable sourcing is all about.

3. The fact that they did not rewrite it is irrelevant, as I said before. If other organisations had picked it up, that would have made it more notable, but one makes it notable enough for inclusion.

4. I consider your suggestion to be too mimimal. The subject is far more interesting than that, and deserves some depth. Rumiton (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. So far as media is concerned, it appears that Malaysia may be closer to Soviet Union than to Great Britain.

• Malaysia#Media: There is very little freedom of the press, leading to very little government accountability.[202] The government has previously tried to crack down on opposition papers before elections.[199] In 2007, a government agency issued a directive to all private television and radio stations to refrain from broadcasting speeches made by opposition leaders,[203] a move condemned by politicians from the opposition Democratic Action Party.[204] Sabah, where only one tabloid is not independent of government control, has the freest press in Malaysia.[200] Laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act have also been cited as curtailing freedom of expression.[205]

2. It's still a press release, published by a government controlled agency of unknown reliability.

3. The fact that it was reprinted without attribution means it was plagiarized. To my view, that reflects poorly on the publisher.

4. According to some accounts, the subject is an inspirational speaker. Speaking at small events is not especially noteworthy. The fact that no one in Europe reported on this means that its notability is limited.

5. Wikipedia must not be used for promotion or advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Rawat uses his considerable resources to pay for 'legitimisation' and promotion with few qualms about revising the truth and suppressing objection. I would be extremely wary of these kinds of reports. .PatW (talk)

*fling*! two cents in...While I'm not opposed to a brief mention of Rawat's activities similiar to what Will proposed above, I did get that "alarm bell" feeling when Rumiton mentioned his 50-odd press releases. IMO, the main focus of this article needs to remain the era of PR's life that is responsible for bringing him to his current state in life. I think it's hard to argue that things he is trying to achieve now should overshadow the incredibly large affect he had on millions of people previously, along with the hubbub/scandle/whatever involving, not only millions of people but also, millions of dollars when it "ended". I don't want to see what I consider to be most important/relevant aspects of PR's notability to be watered down through copious amounts of marginal events being inserted continually. And FTR I'm not suggesting that's a plan that's in place or that anyone is doing that with a purpose or direction to make that happen, I just see it as an unintended consequence if we don't maintain a certain level of awareness about what the focus of this article needs to be (at least until PR does something even more spectacular). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt at even-handedness. To mediate successfully in any dispute one needs to understand both ways of looking at things. From my side, I watch Food for People (which PR founded and works with) feeding indigenous children in northern Australia, where I once worked myself. I watch videos of him addressing meetings chaired by a European Parliament Vice-President, inspiring declarations signed by some quite famous people. I notice that this article currently attracts an average of 271 viewers per day. In the 90s I attended events in India (an English-speaking country) attended by 300 000 people. (I have friends with enough money to still attend similar events, and today they are even bigger.) This is all done with Maharaji's preference for zero publicity, which is courtesy of the media turkeys who interviewed him in the 70s. Friends ask me why this article does not reflect these things, while including reports of how problems with the Malibu Fire Department were resolved in 1975. I have to say "Because we can only say what reputable sources say." Then when a source does refer to these achievements, the attempts to discredit it border on the desperate. My reference to press releases was in reply to Will's suggestion that the source be ignored and only the press releases quoted. You cannot have it both ways. There is no question of the article currently "overshadowing" what happened in the 70s. It is now absurdly and rather viciously, considering everything, tilted towards controversies that arose when he was a teenager. Rumiton (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have an independent source for the 300,000 attendees in India in the 1990s? If so it might be worth adding.

You've misrepresented my view of this matter. The Bernama article is substantially identical to the press release, so it would be dishonest to present it as original writing by attributing it to Bernama. Regardless of who reprints it, it's still a press release.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See, there you go again, Will. I was explaining how it feels for me to know these things are happening but without public acknowledgement, so I know they can't be used, and you politely say, "Do you have a source for that?" No, I don't. The Indian establishment is among the most venal on earth. If they had forewarning of the huge events Prem Rawat holds, including thousands of presumably rich westerners, there would be hundreds of public servants gathering from all over the state to stop them, pending huge bribes. His brother has dealt with this problem by joining the government as a senior politician; Prem Rawat chooses simply not to tell them what he is doing. No publicity, all word of mouth. No good to Wikipedia. But this is in response to Maelefique, who was talking about the truth of Prem Rawat's last 30 years, not the Wikitruth, the WP:RS of it. Here are some videos which show parts of the crowds at recent events.

1. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi. Check the crowd at 0:14. The venue overflowed for the first time ever, and they had to turn people away. [39]

2. The Indira Gandhi Stadium. Watch the first few seconds. He is introduced by a member of parliament, and then by the Vice President of India. [40] Again, the venue was full to overflowing.

3. At 0:43 you can see part of the crowd at a recent event in Germany. [41]

4. Yet another recent one. Again, shows part of the crowd. Watch from 1:06. [42]

There are literally dozens more of these to choose from. Please don't bother telling me YouTube is not a reputable source. But also please don't tell me again that he hasn't done much since 1980. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I hear your frustration - and I have an explanation. Your stated beliefs about why Rawat avoids publicity seem naive. It's obviously because he knows that to invite press coverage of all these events would invite criticism too far. Anyone can see that he prefers to 'control ' whatever media is published about him which, in my opinion, will prove to be a huge mistake on his part. He can't have it both ways. Fame and no press. If he was for real he would not fear the 'world' or pass on his paranoia about 'The Evil World' on to people like you who share his negative world view - that is the hallmark of cults and unorthodox religions. ie religions that have not come to terms with society. In short 'extremism'. There is so much fear around premies and Rawat that all stems from this 'us and them' mentality that you have obviously bought right into. What about accountability and openness? No, with Rawat it's always an 'us and them' situation. He is The Lord and unaccountable to any man. It's well-known he felt the press did him a great disservice in the past but please...grow up Rawat and premies. It's easy to blame the press for everything but if he has nothing to hide he will be ok. There are plenty of celebs who take the flak and laugh about it. Rawat should do the same. Unfortunately there are a raft of 'unwelcome' un-answered questions (that I won't list here) that any impartial interviewer would reasonably ask about. So that probably means that you're stuck with no proper publicity and being a scared 'premie'. Maybe you should just relax and enjoy your wonderful private Knowledge and stop drawing attention to it. Instead of bemoaning your impotence to report his achievements here it's obvious that you should be petitioning Rawat to get some proper coverage which doesn't reek of self-publicity. PatW (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to write anything here without including a bag of personal insults? I'll just continue to ignore your posts until you do. Rumiton (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading Surdas's deleted derogatory nonsense above, I can see that this patient and tolerant approach has not worked. Any further personal insults will be reported (by me). I don't think I have ever done this before, but enough is enough. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pledge to Peace

What do editors make of the "pledge to peace", which seems to have been a or rather the main issue of that conference? Evaluate http://www.associazionepercorsi.com/?p=2617--Rainer P. (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much what we make of it. Without secondary reportage we probably can't include it. Rumiton (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And on that same line of thought, the 2 sources you provide for this event both say directly that the TPRF is the source for this event. They didn't cover it independently, they're just reposting the press release. I'm not arguing with you that it didn't happen, I'm arguing about whether it's notable. I'm not convinced it is, and I'm not sure why you're suddenly inserting things into the article without getting consensus suddenly either, but whatever. 2 mentions of a press release, about something that was signed regarding peace (Signed by Rawat, and then by the president of TPRF, notable? really?). Passing along a verbatim text of the press release doesn't cut it for me. I would like to remove this text, but I am willing to wait a bit and discuss it, or until you can find some better sources, if that's possible, or let you remove it until you do find some better sources. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a list of signatories here: http://www.associazionepercorsi.com/?p=2970--Rainer P. (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that the "article" makes more of a big deal about the president of the TPRF signing the form than it does of all the others. Very "press release=y" and not journalism, since they obviously didn't cover the event themselves. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 09:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Which "article" are you talking about? Are you talking about this Talk Page? The main article makes no mention of the Pledge to Peace or who signed it. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"PR NEWSWIRE, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-of-peace-prem-rawat-134817323.html, also commented in THE STREET, http://www.thestreet.com/story/11328396/2/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-of-peace-prem-rawat.html" -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is some additional input from RS/N, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Is a source necessarily reliable if a secondary reliable source uses them? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)