Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

"Media"

The "Media"-paragraph stops at 1973, with all that weird 50-people-PR-team, the youth, the Rolls and the physical appearance. All this has no connection with present reality any more. I think, that Times-of India-source can and should be used to document that there is now support by at least one large media corporation. Also, there has been friendly TV-coverage in South America last summer, maybe we can find a RS for that. I think that this is a notable change. Let's try and formulate an additional sentence or two for that paragraph. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Prem Rawat's entire life. If he doesn't place himself before the mainstream media -- which will scrutinize him -- then there's nothing that can be done about it in this article. The sources currently in the article are reliable sources as it stands. It would be original research to try to extrapolate that now there is positive media coverage because of one event in India, that was co-sponsored by the Times Foundation, which is the non-profit foundation of TOI. All that can be done here is report what media organs report about. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well since Rawat choose to hide from the public media there is indeed almost nothing to report. In the case of the Times of India there obviously was some cooperation with Rawat, but i wouldn't say they are now supporting him in general. I recommend to wait until there are more events like this in coopertaion with ToI until we can say there is support for his mission. We don't know the backgrounds. A simple statement of ToI like "We actively support Rawat's goals" or similar would do it as well.Surdas (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If I were an information-seeking reader, I would definitely sense a deficit in that Media paragraph. No need to extrapolate. Just some facts, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Merely stolidly protecting those obsolete 40-years-old informations may appear a bit reactionary. And what do you mean OR? If the connection between Rawat and ToI is enough to prevent using their articles as RS, it can certainly be used to substantiate a collaboration. I would appreciate a neutral opinion.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding an opinion: I'd agree the media paragraph seems truncated and if there are good RS they could be used to update the information in the Media subsection. If I understand the situation, we have multiple sources from Rawat's early years and very few now. We have a source about a recent event in India. What we can do is use the early sources, and probably should not remove them, and use the recent India event source. We could also find RS for more recent events

We can't say that the India event means that Rawat has more followers, and we can't say that the Times support means there is more support or that the Times supports Rawal in general.

To say either we would need a source which specfically says there are more followers, and which specifically says the Times support in this recent event indicates the Times supports Rawat in general. Anything else is OR. We can and should say the Times supported this specific event.

We have to let the reader make whatever assumptions that information suggests.

I think its critical to include dates on all of the content in the Response section since much of it is historical in nature.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC))

I'd add. Up to date information is just that, while information that is decades old becomes historical and gives a historical perspective. At some point we need information that is current while beginning to note older content is part of the history of Prem Rawat's movement. Something to think about for the future of this article (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

Sounds like something wie all can agree on, thank you, Olive.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So, how do you think about adding to the "Media"-section In Feb. 2014, an event in Delhi, India, with more than 200,000 participants was co-sponsored by media-corporation The Times Foundation, and covered in The Times of India and on the affiliated TV-Newschannel Times Now. --Rainer P. (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being attentive. I've had a very bad cold. Rainer P., please don't take it upon yourself to edit the article until it's very clear that a consensus has been reached. I understand the paragraph under "Media" but it's poorly written. I suggest the following changes:

Paragraph as it stands:

From Rawat's first travels in the West, he and his followers attracted media attention. In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed."[14] In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and the Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit "pieing" incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors to judge Rawat's credibility.[11]

My suggestion, with a few grammatical and punctuation edits:

Prem Rawat and his followers attracted media attention when he first traveled to the west. Rawat said, in an interview in Der Spiegel, 1973, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed."[14] In 1973, Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, his Rolls Royce, the Detroit "pieing" incident, and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors before judging Rawat's credibility.[11]

I'm against any additions to the paragraph because the paragraph is not about Rawat's events (then or now) it's about Rawat's "Reception," of which "Media" is a subheading. Rainer P., there is source material available at the top of this talk page under "Subpages." Hope that helps.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sylviecyn, for suggesting "his" Rolls-Royce instead of "the" Rolls-Royce, when you have sources for that. I have no problem with the rest, it's at least not worse than before. Reading the article neutrally through an information-seeking reader's eyes, I would certainly welcome some info on the media's stance on what he's doing, as that can hardly be understood seperately from his persona. Do you really think, anybody might complain: too much information, we want to read nothing but how the media did not take him seriously in the early years? So, I see no reason to retract my well-sourced above proposal, or to wait months again to find a solution from a neutral board, when there seems to be hardly any common ground for us. I doubt that your strategy finds approval from a majority of quality-concious WP-editors, if that is what it boils down to, as primary consensus, though desirable, may not be attained in our life-times, neither is it an indispensable condition.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already found three sources (there are many more) that confirm Rawat had at least one Rolls-Royce, plus more luxury cars at the time, including a couple of Mercedes and a Masarati: New York Times 1974, Rolling Stone 1974, Hinduism Today 1983. That said, I'm not married to the idea of changing the "his" to "the." Sylviecyn (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, Sylviecyn, when those reports were published in 1974, Rawat was far under age, and I don't assume, the Rolling Stone or even the NY Times had actually researched, where that Rolls came from or to whom it belonged. For their purpose it was sufficient to see him sitting in one. I think, a Rolls is not exactly his taste, either, he probably liked the Maserati more ... I remember Rawat recounting, how he was picked up at Heathrow with 25£ in his pocket in a garlanded Rolls, and I have seen photos of that, so this is probably where the continuing narrative of the Rolls-Royce stems from. Later, he reported, when he asked for transportation, the Rolls was gone, as it had only been rented for the occasion, and he was riding in a blue Cortina, which also belonged to somebody else. But I'm sure you know all this yourself, and I'm not ready to discuss Rawat with you. I'd rather stay on the issue of updating this article, and I would be happy if you were more cooperative.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, New York Times, and Hinduism Today are all reliable sources. You cannot "assume" what the reporters did or didn't research. This is Wikipedia. We have to take the reporting at face value. So far, I think I'm being productive and cooperative. I proposed a more clear paragraph and I don't care if you want to keep "the Rolls-Royce," rather than my proposed "his Rolls-Royce." I'm trying to be as objective as I can. Please do the same, without sarcasm, please. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, I didn't mean to be sarcastic. I guess, everybody talks with the tongue they have. I think, we should try and get some neutral help here.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I have copyright-issues cleared, I'd like to add this picture, and place it into the "Media"-section, along with this sentence: In Feb. 2014, an event in Delhi, India, with more than 200,000 participants was co-sponsored by media-corporation The Times Foundation, and covered in The Times of India and on the affiliated TV-Newschannel Times Now. Objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

the link above gives me a server error. second: as far as i remmber rawat was just the keynote speaker, and it was a peace festival with many participants. If you add just above sentence it would look as this was an event just for rawat, co-sponsored by Times of India. IMO that gives the reader a wrong impression of what has happened and i am sure you don't want that either.Surdas (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So we should change the sentence accordingly, please make suggestions. I'll see if I can find another link for the pic. It shows Rawat on a lectern with the TIMES-logo on it.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., I suggest you consider placing your blurb in the 1983-2000s section, which describes other Rawat events and activities. The "Media" section is a subsection of "Reception" which discusses how Rawat was received in the west. The program you are trying to insert took place in India. Please consider this and discuss. Also, how what are you doing to "clear" copywrite issues? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to put in the 1983-2000 section which could be updated to 1983 - present? Any objections to this?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

That makes sense to do. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that and adjust the sentence, that is already there. And we should mention and document the Times Corporation's involvement, for which the photo is good support. The Times of India is after all the " world's largest selling English-language daily, ranking it as the third largest selling newspaper in any language in the world and the largest selling newspaper outside Japan" (Wikipedia), and while Rawat's arrival in the west has certainly been a historic news-item, the whole issue has meanwhile developed a rather global dimension. E.g. South-America can also be considered 'west', and I'll try to get some information on media reaction there. Africa is not Asian either, nor is it "west". The picture has to be first inserted into Wiki Commons, I'll try to get WOPG or TPRF to include it there, may take a few days.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise with placing the New Delhi and the other Rawat's events you mentioned into the 1983-present section, but not every single one, every year. It makes sense, if reliable sources are available, to bring Rawat's activities up to date in the article. I like putting them in 1983-Present as LittleOlive oil suggested. I would also like to change the paragraph in "Media" which I proposed above, and putting in "the Rolls-Royce" is fine with me. What do you think? Compromise? Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let us construct a sentence or two that includes all the sources, for a) the event having taken place at all and b) TIMES' involvement, and possibly later that photo. Of course we can not mention all his events, that would be tedious, and independent sources are rare, though there seems to be a trend that this is presently changing. That's why that Delhi-event deserves special mentioning. Then in the introduction we have to change the allegation that Rawat has no following in India, as that would be in dissonance with the article content. We should also change the statement, that there has been "extensive traveling in the 80s and 90s", as it erroniously seems to imply that he has stopped doing so from 2000 on. It could read something like: He has been traveling extensively since he left India. And "the" Rolls-Royce is already there anyway and needs not change. Thanks for compromising, and let's find formulations and sentences.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to smile here because you're making the proposals, but you want someone else to write them. Please write and propose drafts of what you want change and we can discuss. I'm certainly willing to help with sentence contruction -- no problem with that -- but, please bear in mind that you are the person wanting to make more edits to this ten year old article. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I managed to make you smile, Sylviecyn! I would certainly write the proposed sentences myself with more boldness, if English were my first language, and I really do not intend to burden anybody, when I ask for suggestions; sorry, if you read me that way. Yes, the article has a long history, and on the whole you might admit, it has been improving most of the time, by the virtue of changes. And it was never still. Even during the article's nuclear winter more than fifty edits were made alone by user Francis Schonken, without even an attempt of discussion and without objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with Olive, we should change the section header to '1983 - present'.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are making a proposal, the burden is on you to write it, including links to sources so that we all can read the sources, too. Or at least provide info on the sources so we can independently verify them. I don't have time to do the work you want done. But I do have time to read your drafts and make helpful suggestions about grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc. -- you said English isn't your first language so I understand that. I don't think it's appropriate for you to remove material from this article because it refers to Rawat's past. Once again, the article is about his whole life. Prem Rawat stopped talking to the press a long time ago. That was his decision so there's nothing to be done about that. It does make editing the article difficult, though, no?  :) Talk to Rawat about it. Maybe he'll arrange some mainstream media interviews so he become better known to the general public -- which btw, currently, he is not. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let me correct you: I don't remove material from the article because it refers to Rawat's past. That's what we call a strawman, isn't it? I want to take a meaningless piece of debris out of the summary, and put two sentences into a more logical order, and I have made propositions for all this in detail.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Joy's clarification request

So, back to this one. I think it is appropriate to delete the sentence in question, as it seems meaningless and ununderstandable beyond repair. It must be the cold ruin of some prolonged conflict, but the way it is, it is worthless and should not be there. The "opulent lifestyle" and the "lack of intellectual content" has already been mentioned a sentence before. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

i guess it was quite a long process to install this sentence as it was common that if there was a critical statement about Rawat, a counter statment or an explanation was installed to relativate it. I mean what would we loose? The information that Rawat had a distrust concerning the press is one example. I think it is necessary to know this fact to understand why there was so few information about him for decades. On the other hand my abilities to recreate this sentence are limited due to my lesser language skills. Any other ideas? Surdas (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

His distrust in the press is mentioned further below in the article body, but I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned in the summary. I agree it is worth mentioning the circumstances that lead to his withdrawal from mass media, but that is not what the sentence says, I think. It would require a whole new sentence in the "Media"-section to state that. I would support such a statement, and also its reflection in the summary, as it would then be a relevant item. But I see no way to morph this out of the sentence as it stands.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Media"

The "Media"-paragraph stops at 1973, with all that weird 50-people-PR-team, the youth, the Rolls and the physical appearance. All this has no connection with present reality any more. I think, that Times-of India-source can and should be used to document that there is now support by at least one large media corporation. Also, there has been friendly TV-coverage in South America last summer, maybe we can find a RS for that. I think that this is a notable change. Let's try and formulate an additional sentence or two for that paragraph. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Prem Rawat's entire life. If he doesn't place himself before the mainstream media -- which will scrutinize him -- then there's nothing that can be done about it in this article. The sources currently in the article are reliable sources as it stands. It would be original research to try to extrapolate that now there is positive media coverage because of one event in India, that was co-sponsored by the Times Foundation, which is the non-profit foundation of TOI. All that can be done here is report what media organs report about. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well since Rawat choose to hide from the public media there is indeed almost nothing to report. In the case of the Times of India there obviously was some cooperation with Rawat, but i wouldn't say they are now supporting him in general. I recommend to wait until there are more events like this in coopertaion with ToI until we can say there is support for his mission. We don't know the backgrounds. A simple statement of ToI like "We actively support Rawat's goals" or similar would do it as well.Surdas (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If I were an information-seeking reader, I would definitely sense a deficit in that Media paragraph. No need to extrapolate. Just some facts, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Merely stolidly protecting those obsolete 40-years-old informations may appear a bit reactionary. And what do you mean OR? If the connection between Rawat and ToI is enough to prevent using their articles as RS, it can certainly be used to substantiate a collaboration. I would appreciate a neutral opinion.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding an opinion: I'd agree the media paragraph seems truncated and if there are good RS they could be used to update the information in the Media subsection. If I understand the situation, we have multiple sources from Rawat's early years and very few now. We have a source about a recent event in India. What we can do is use the early sources, and probably should not remove them, and use the recent India event source. We could also find RS for more recent events

We can't say that the India event means that Rawat has more followers, and we can't say that the Times support means there is more support or that the Times supports Rawal in general.

To say either we would need a source which specfically says there are more followers, and which specifically says the Times support in this recent event indicates the Times supports Rawat in general. Anything else is OR. We can and should say the Times supported this specific event.

We have to let the reader make whatever assumptions that information suggests.

I think its critical to include dates on all of the content in the Response section since much of it is historical in nature.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC))

I'd add. Up to date information is just that, while information that is decades old becomes historical and gives a historical perspective. At some point we need information that is current while beginning to note older content is part of the history of Prem Rawat's movement. Something to think about for the future of this article (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

Sounds like something wie all can agree on, thank you, Olive.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So, how do you think about adding to the "Media"-section In Feb. 2014, an event in Delhi, India, with more than 200,000 participants was co-sponsored by media-corporation The Times Foundation, and covered in The Times of India and on the affiliated TV-Newschannel Times Now. --Rainer P. (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being attentive. I've had a very bad cold. Rainer P., please don't take it upon yourself to edit the article until it's very clear that a consensus has been reached. I understand the paragraph under "Media" but it's poorly written. I suggest the following changes:

Paragraph as it stands:

From Rawat's first travels in the West, he and his followers attracted media attention. In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed."[14] In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and the Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit "pieing" incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors to judge Rawat's credibility.[11]

My suggestion, with a few grammatical and punctuation edits:

Prem Rawat and his followers attracted media attention when he first traveled to the west. Rawat said, in an interview in Der Spiegel, 1973, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed."[14] In 1973, Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, his Rolls Royce, the Detroit "pieing" incident, and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors before judging Rawat's credibility.[11]

I'm against any additions to the paragraph because the paragraph is not about Rawat's events (then or now) it's about Rawat's "Reception," of which "Media" is a subheading. Rainer P., there is source material available at the top of this talk page under "Subpages." Hope that helps.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sylviecyn, for suggesting "his" Rolls-Royce instead of "the" Rolls-Royce, when you have sources for that. I have no problem with the rest, it's at least not worse than before. Reading the article neutrally through an information-seeking reader's eyes, I would certainly welcome some info on the media's stance on what he's doing, as that can hardly be understood seperately from his persona. Do you really think, anybody might complain: too much information, we want to read nothing but how the media did not take him seriously in the early years? So, I see no reason to retract my well-sourced above proposal, or to wait months again to find a solution from a neutral board, when there seems to be hardly any common ground for us. I doubt that your strategy finds approval from a majority of quality-concious WP-editors, if that is what it boils down to, as primary consensus, though desirable, may not be attained in our life-times, neither is it an indispensable condition.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already found three sources (there are many more) that confirm Rawat had at least one Rolls-Royce, plus more luxury cars at the time, including a couple of Mercedes and a Masarati: New York Times 1974, Rolling Stone 1974, Hinduism Today 1983. That said, I'm not married to the idea of changing the "his" to "the." Sylviecyn (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, Sylviecyn, when those reports were published in 1974, Rawat was far under age, and I don't assume, the Rolling Stone or even the NY Times had actually researched, where that Rolls came from or to whom it belonged. For their purpose it was sufficient to see him sitting in one. I think, a Rolls is not exactly his taste, either, he probably liked the Maserati more ... I remember Rawat recounting, how he was picked up at Heathrow with 25£ in his pocket in a garlanded Rolls, and I have seen photos of that, so this is probably where the continuing narrative of the Rolls-Royce stems from. Later, he reported, when he asked for transportation, the Rolls was gone, as it had only been rented for the occasion, and he was riding in a blue Cortina, which also belonged to somebody else. But I'm sure you know all this yourself, and I'm not ready to discuss Rawat with you. I'd rather stay on the issue of updating this article, and I would be happy if you were more cooperative.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, New York Times, and Hinduism Today are all reliable sources. You cannot "assume" what the reporters did or didn't research. This is Wikipedia. We have to take the reporting at face value. So far, I think I'm being productive and cooperative. I proposed a more clear paragraph and I don't care if you want to keep "the Rolls-Royce," rather than my proposed "his Rolls-Royce." I'm trying to be as objective as I can. Please do the same, without sarcasm, please. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, I didn't mean to be sarcastic. I guess, everybody talks with the tongue they have. I think, we should try and get some neutral help here.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I have copyright-issues cleared, I'd like to add this picture, and place it into the "Media"-section, along with this sentence: In Feb. 2014, an event in Delhi, India, with more than 200,000 participants was co-sponsored by media-corporation The Times Foundation, and covered in The Times of India and on the affiliated TV-Newschannel Times Now. Objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

the link above gives me a server error. second: as far as i remmber rawat was just the keynote speaker, and it was a peace festival with many participants. If you add just above sentence it would look as this was an event just for rawat, co-sponsored by Times of India. IMO that gives the reader a wrong impression of what has happened and i am sure you don't want that either.Surdas (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So we should change the sentence accordingly, please make suggestions. I'll see if I can find another link for the pic. It shows Rawat on a lectern with the TIMES-logo on it.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., I suggest you consider placing your blurb in the 1983-2000s section, which describes other Rawat events and activities. The "Media" section is a subsection of "Reception" which discusses how Rawat was received in the west. The program you are trying to insert took place in India. Please consider this and discuss. Also, how what are you doing to "clear" copywrite issues? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to put in the 1983-2000 section which could be updated to 1983 - present? Any objections to this?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

That makes sense to do. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that and adjust the sentence, that is already there. And we should mention and document the Times Corporation's involvement, for which the photo is good support. The Times of India is after all the " world's largest selling English-language daily, ranking it as the third largest selling newspaper in any language in the world and the largest selling newspaper outside Japan" (Wikipedia), and while Rawat's arrival in the west has certainly been a historic news-item, the whole issue has meanwhile developed a rather global dimension. E.g. South-America can also be considered 'west', and I'll try to get some information on media reaction there. Africa is not Asian either, nor is it "west". The picture has to be first inserted into Wiki Commons, I'll try to get WOPG or TPRF to include it there, may take a few days.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise with placing the New Delhi and the other Rawat's events you mentioned into the 1983-present section, but not every single one, every year. It makes sense, if reliable sources are available, to bring Rawat's activities up to date in the article. I like putting them in 1983-Present as LittleOlive oil suggested. I would also like to change the paragraph in "Media" which I proposed above, and putting in "the Rolls-Royce" is fine with me. What do you think? Compromise? Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let us construct a sentence or two that includes all the sources, for a) the event having taken place at all and b) TIMES' involvement, and possibly later that photo. Of course we can not mention all his events, that would be tedious, and independent sources are rare, though there seems to be a trend that this is presently changing. That's why that Delhi-event deserves special mentioning. Then in the introduction we have to change the allegation that Rawat has no following in India, as that would be in dissonance with the article content. We should also change the statement, that there has been "extensive traveling in the 80s and 90s", as it erroniously seems to imply that he has stopped doing so from 2000 on. It could read something like: He has been traveling extensively since he left India. And "the" Rolls-Royce is already there anyway and needs not change. Thanks for compromising, and let's find formulations and sentences.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to smile here because you're making the proposals, but you want someone else to write them. Please write and propose drafts of what you want change and we can discuss. I'm certainly willing to help with sentence contruction -- no problem with that -- but, please bear in mind that you are the person wanting to make more edits to this ten year old article. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I managed to make you smile, Sylviecyn! I would certainly write the proposed sentences myself with more boldness, if English were my first language, and I really do not intend to burden anybody, when I ask for suggestions; sorry, if you read me that way. Yes, the article has a long history, and on the whole you might admit, it has been improving most of the time, by the virtue of changes. And it was never still. Even during the article's nuclear winter more than fifty edits were made alone by user Francis Schonken, without even an attempt of discussion and without objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with Olive, we should change the section header to '1983 - present'.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are making a proposal, the burden is on you to write it, including links to sources so that we all can read the sources, too. Or at least provide info on the sources so we can independently verify them. I don't have time to do the work you want done. But I do have time to read your drafts and make helpful suggestions about grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc. -- you said English isn't your first language so I understand that. I don't think it's appropriate for you to remove material from this article because it refers to Rawat's past. Once again, the article is about his whole life. Prem Rawat stopped talking to the press a long time ago. That was his decision so there's nothing to be done about that. It does make editing the article difficult, though, no?  :) Talk to Rawat about it. Maybe he'll arrange some mainstream media interviews so he become better known to the general public -- which btw, currently, he is not. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let me correct you: I don't remove material from the article because it refers to Rawat's past. That's what we call a strawman, isn't it? I want to take a meaningless piece of debris out of the summary, and put two sentences into a more logical order, and I have made propositions for all this in detail.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

India/U.S.

... is a native of India who teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. I propose: ... is an Indian native U.S. citizen who ..., otherwise an important information is lost. Objections? Improvements?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that using "Indian-American" is best. That means he was born in India and is now a U.S. citizen. I have the following suggestion for rewriting the first two sentences of the lede because it's very awkward:

As the article stands:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and (for publications going back to the early years of his public appearances) as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, is a native of India who teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[1]

My proposal:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is also known as Maharaji, and formerly was known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar. Rawat is an Indian American who teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[1]

What do you think? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I trust you to know better than I whether it sufficiently rules out being confused with American-Indian. Does it?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

American Indians are more commonly referred to as Native Americans. But, there's an article on Wiki called Indian American so an inline link can be made to that for clarity, as I changed above in my proposal. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's o.k. There is yet a little dissonance between the lemma and the full name: The article's lemma is Prem Rawat, and then it starts: Prem Pal Singh Rawat, and there is no definite indication that it denotes the same person... For comparison, the German article starts: Prem Rawat (vollständig: Prem Pal Singh Rawat; * 10. Dezember 1957 in Kankhal, Indien) ist ein spiritueller Lehrer, der auf weltweiten Vortragsreisen über Frieden spricht. (transl.: "Prem Rawat (complete: Prem Pal Singh Rawat) is a spiritual teacher who speaks about peace on global tours.") I mean, while we're at it, maybe we could do something similar with just the name, to resolve that discrepancy. Maybe: Prem Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत, Prem Pal Singh Rawat, born on 10 December 1957 in Kankhal, India...) When we give his birth place, that would settle any ambiguity from start. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a discrepency, it's Rawat's full legal name. Also, Rawat was born in Hardiwar, India which is already indicated under his photo at the top right of the page. People will understand. I don't see the need to make the English article the same as the German one, especially if they haven't gotten his birthplace correct. Let's move along in English, please. By the way, what is "lemma?" I don't know that word. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It was just a thought. I don't know where the Kankhal edit is sourced, possibly it's not a contradiction. Will you kindly place your edit?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, the lemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headword I had never heard of it either before I hit Wikipedia. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't make edits to the main article because of my declared conflict of interest. I limit edits to the talk page here. Would you kindly place the edit in the article for me? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, done. But you're missing half the fun...--Rainer P. (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm only being conservative.  :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

116.202.13.255 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction, clarification

He came to prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5] He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] and for an opulent lifestyle.[8][9] His followers, when they have reacted to such criticism, have tended to point to issues of perception[10][11][12] while Rawat himself has attributed it to ability to give peace[13][clarification needed] and his mistrust of the press.[14] Editor Joy placed a clarification tag, IMO rightfully. No way to understand, why Rawat should attribute criticism to his ability to give peace. Any idea how to formulate more understandably?

Also, for the time being I suggest to add "early" to the "prominence" in this passage: He came to prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]. That may have been the case 40 years ago, but I doubt that a majority of modern readers can begin much with Divine Light Mission and have a quite different approach to Rawat's prominence. Furthermore, the word "cult" appears three times in the introduction's first paragraph, which appears a little overkill, while in contrast Rawat continues to speak for large and/or select audiences worldwide, and on several occasions has received a significant recognition for his work and message of Peace, almost at the end of the lede, sounds rather laconic in summing up the last decades. This does not even roughly mirror the proportions the article devotes to the more recent chapters of his biography. But let's begin with Joy's clarification request. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i guess you want to start continuing the whitewashing of the article as done by Momento and Rumiton. I strongly object to change the introduction as it was reinstated by Jimbo Wales himself. And i think you know that. I suggest to leave it as it is in peace. You can add relevant information if there is any and if it is RS in the relevant chapters. Surdas (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has no more power on any article than any other editor. Further no one is adding or subtracting anything at this point. This is a discussion not an edit. So if you or others don't like something you should voice concern about the edits. This is the place to do it, and I believe Rainer's post here suggests Rainer is only adding what he has agreement for. There is discussion to first deal with a concern added by someone else, not Rainer. I'd agree the sentence in question makes no sense. Anyone have suggestions on how to fix it?(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

His followers, when they have reacted to such criticism, have tended to point to issues of perception[10][11][12] while Rawat himself has attributed it to ability to give peace[13][clarification needed] and his mistrust of the press.[14]

I don't have much time these days so I leave this to those who are regulars here. Just use good sources and discuss in good faith and this should be an easy process. This is a good faith comment about good faith. :O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

well i don't undertsand that sentence either. i am only guessing it could mean he uses his wealth to spread peace, which isn't true and i have never heard him talking about his money, except when he said once how hard it is to be a millionaire.Surdas (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody have access to the specified source? What does it actually say there?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

well if you don't mind to enter the dark side of the force you can find it here http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/magazines/1973/therealist.htm

Surdas (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I held my breath and read it, and it is a very good example for the way, reports on Rawat were unreeled by society- and gossip-reporters in the 70s. It's an interesting historical document, but hardly a RS for a BLP, of all places in the lead paragraph. Still I cannot even confirm from that source, that he ever stated that he was criticised for his ability to give peace. Can you elaborate?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i will think about it. But i must tell you that i don't think of any article that is critical about Rawat to be gossip journalism. Why should there be an ability to give peace in Rawat in the first place for example. I mean he just delivers four yoga technics that may or may not lead to some calmness. But receiving His peace trough those vehicles would be a complete differrent story. Surdas (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Added "early", as proposed and not substantially contested.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Addressing Joy's request for clarification again: If we still can't distill any sense out of this sentence, neither any coherence with the indicated sources, perhaps we ought to delete that sentence altogether. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But the controversy between the need of luxury and inner peace of Rawat(if he has any) would be lost Surdas (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

he had gained an active control of the DLM (by now established in 55 countries), except its Indian severed stem - DLM by now does not exist for quite some time. Also there seems to be a significant following in India, too. So this sentence is quite misleading. Constructive suggestions for repair?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

since the organisations do not have statistics of memberships it would be hard to source that Surdas (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to leave it as disinformative as it is?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) At this point, Raj Vidya Kender should be mentioned in the "Following"-section, as the Indian branch of Rawat's mission.http://www.rajvidyakender.org . If anybody can offer some facts, you are most welcome. For this purpose, primary sources are acceptable. Then, the summary should not display a contradictory statement. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ........Why shouldn't it contain a contradictory statement? Is that a policy ? A contradictory appearance deserves mentioning i think. Surdas (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC) You can't state "A" in the article body, and "Not-A" in the summary.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As nobody has been able to draw any sense from it, I have deleted the problematic sentence, including footnotes, which have not actually supported it.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Another suggestion: The introduction mentions criticism, before any hint is given on the nature of R's teachings. This does not seem logical. Accordingly, I'ld like to move the last paragraph (The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is...) ahead of "He has been criticised..." Opinions? Furthermore, Prem Rawat ... is a native of India who teaches a meditation practice... reads misleading, when there is no mentioning the fact that he has spent the by far larger part of his life as a U.S. citizen in the USA. Please make proposals to amend that sentence, you native speakers.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody know a source that can date the foundation and/or developement of the Raj Vidya Kender in India? It could then probably go to the end of section "1974–1983", and require corresponding adaptation in the introduction.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are the one who declares when discussion is over and consensus is reached, don't you? I find your edit agressive. I won't comment on the article anymore, as long as you are not cooperating. You obviously have an agenda, next hop is obviously the "cult" wordings in the lead. Surdas (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Surdas if you have concerns with the deletion perhaps detail them; I'm not sure what you were suggesting in your brief sentence above here:

Why shouldn't it contain a contradictory statement? Is that a policy ? A contradictory appearance deserves mentioning I think.

• Rainer, perhaps it would be a good idea to restore the deletion and to continue discussion since there seems to be opposition to it.

• In general I don't think accusations help write the content for this article, so , maybe more detail about concerns and then lots of time to discuss, agree, and then making sure to let others know a change will be made. I know this is an unwieldy way to edit, but it makes sure everyone is on board when there's a change. This is a contentious article for sure. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC))

thanks olive. Let me explain my thoughts: i think the sentence meant (concerning the sources) that Rawat was ridiculed by the press for adding luxuries for himself while praising inner fullfilment which was to them(the press) a contradiction. The followers on the other side stated that they don't care as long Rawat is able to give them peace. I am not a native speaker, so i would have a hard time to make a sentence out of it that fits wikipedia's standards. If you can agree with my thoughts or have some of your own please share Surdas (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Surdas, I was not aware you were discussing the edit. More than one month has passed since Joy's clarification-tag, and even you yourself admitted that the sentence is not understandable. You announced to "think about it" and that was the last comment you made in this discussion, so I figured it was over and we could go ahead. I have restored the deletion to honour Olive's exemplary patience, but please indicate how much more time you will need to think, so there can be an agreement, and we can move on. 'I just don't like it' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it is not a substantial argument, and it can not be tolerated that a constructive editing process is being consequently disrupted by sheer passive aggressivity.--Rainer P. (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Polemic and for the Grace of removing the edit only because you respect Olive so much. And please don't overstress the "you don't like it" argument. You didn't like the sentence and it's sources so you deleted it without warning. What about a little self-reflection? Surdas (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence because it demonstrably did not make sense to anybody, not even to you, and I gave a warning on March 12: Addressing Joy's request for clarification again: If we still can't distill any sense out of this sentence, neither any coherence with the indicated sources, perhaps we ought to delete that sentence altogether., and there was no substantial opposition.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Surdas. Care needed. No need to turn a simple, polite action inside out. No need to create an unpleasant feeling here. We cannot assume motive for anyone. Let's just move onto dealing with this article and leave behind personal attacks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC))

Elan Vital ceased operations in 2010, and has been succeeded by new entities such as Words of Peace International, Inc. - that's what the Elan Vital article says. So the introduction, which has only successfully managed to acknowledge that DLM does not exist any more, should be further updated. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Oh, I just saw that is being mentioned two sentences later. I think we should slightly change the order of sentences, to make it more coherent. Objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested on March 16, I would like now to move 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 that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches. to the place where it logically belongs, that is after ...who teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge. Any rational objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, for more coherent reading, I intend to move By the 2010s more organizations were put to the front and Elan Vital was eventually replaced by a complex of them. after Ashrams were closed and the part of DLM he controlled was replaced by Elan Vital, as I suggested March 17. Any rational objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object to you stating you "intend" to change something, while not offering a coherent description of your proposal with reliable sources. Please don't characterize anyone's remarks as "rational" or unrational." You need realiable sources. Please finish your proposals for the "Media" section and "1983-Present" before jumping back to this. Rainer P., have you been reading all of the realiable sources associated with all the parts that you propose to change? I'm referring to the sources which now stand in the article, as well an any new media and scholarly sources you have found to support your proposed changes. What are the sources? Moreover, The sentence Joy marked for clarification is no big deal and can be rewritten and included with better writing for clarity. I'd appreciate it a lot if you'd finish writing draft proposals for the sections below first. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should we work on one issue at a time, when each one takes weeks and months? I am only talking about moving two sentences in the introduction into a more logical and readable order. No additional sources needed for that, I suppose. I have let some time go by, for reasons of civility. Anything wrong with that? And I have not characterized anybody's remarks as rational or irrational, have I.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So please make a definitive comment on my intention to move those two sentences in the lead section into the proposed order and to deleting the tagged sentence, so we can proceed? Otherwise I will initiate a Dispute Resolution, so I don't have to sever that consensus-agreement too much. I just hope I don't have to do that each time a sensible edit has to be made. BTW, I fail to understand what you gain by such systematic obstructive behaviour. It does not really feel like we're working together for the better of the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your comment, "I fail to understand what you gain by such systematic obstructive behaviour." How is that helpful? Sylviecyn (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that your definitive comment? I take it, there is no actual opposition to the proposed edit then, except a basic 'I don't like it'-attitude.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I don't like the last sentence of the first paragraph and it's okay to delete it (the one marked by Joy); and 2) Your other suggestion is also fine with me -- you want to move the last paragraph of the introduction starting with "...The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is that the individual’s need for fulfillment..." and placing it as you described above, after the sentence "...who teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge." Those are reasonable edits, imo. I'm unclear what about what else you want to do about the the Introduction without expanding it to an unwieldy size.

You keep intermingling your ideas in these sections so it's difficult to keep track of your proposals, Rainer P. Now that you opened a new section for Raj Vidya Kender, please move the related text in this section to that one. Please organize your thoughts and then organize them on this talk page. Please don't expect me to interrupt my days because you are being impatient here. And also refrain from characterizing me or my behavior on this talk page. It's inappropriate and off-topic. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I made the edits as agreed, thanks for your cooperation, Sylviecyn. I am actually sorry for my sometimes evidently erratic style of work. Let's not lose hope, I promise to try harder to be more organized (but then, that was my weak point in school, and now I'm an old man...). But I don't think I'm impatient.

I share your concern, that the lead section is already too long, that is why I do hesitate to make additions. In general view, it seems to devote too much space to those seemingly scandalous days in the seventies, which, seen as yesterdecade's news from the needs of a modern reader, may perhaps not appear so interesting after all. The later developments, which may be the reason why a reader might look up the article to begin with, are however very cursory addressed in three lines at the end of the section. So, generally, I think, if we want to keep the summary short and up to date, the old items should be more summed up and give space to more recent developments.

Next proposal: By the 2010s more organizations were put to the front and Elan Vital was eventually replaced by a complex of them. Should be placed right behind the part of DLM he controlled was replaced by Elan Vital. Put to the front feels odd somehow. How about founded? And TPRF and WOPG are significant enough to be named here. Also: Rawat toured extensively in the 80s and 90s insinuates, that he stopped doing so by 2000. The article implies however, that there were tours after 2000. So I propose to replace the sentence like this: Rawat toured extensively from his debut in the West on.

So that passage could read: (…)Ashrams were closed, and the part of DLM he controlled was at first replaced by Elan Vital, to fund and organize Rawat's work. By the 2010s „The Prem Rawat Foundation“ (TPRF) and „Words of Peace Global“ (WOPG) were founded, and Elan Vital was replaced by them.

Rawat toured extensively from his debut in the West on. He continues to speak for large and/or select audiences worldwide, and on several occasions has received significant recognition for his work and message of Peace.

What do you think? Can it be improved?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

May I ask again, no suggestions/objections? In that case I would insert the bold text to replace the passage as it stands.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with updating things in the lede is that there aren't reliable sources available to support mentioning TPRF and WOPG in the body of the article. After all, the lede is a summary of what's written in the main article. Once again, the article is about all of Rawat's life, from the beginning to the present. If there aren't any reliable sources available to write about the newer organizations within the article, then they should be omitted from the lede. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are partly right. Actually TPRF is mentioned and referenced in Section "1983-Present", but WOPG is only indirectly mentioned, which is a glaring omission, and I agree, we have to fix that first. I'm sure we can find RS for that. Would you help?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Trinidad

What do you think of this source? http://newsday.co.tt/features/0,194286.html--Rainer P. (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately it sound like an add, doesn't name an author and gives the phonenumber of wopg for further information. Does this sound independent to you? Further opinions? And what do you want to source with it? Surdas (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an advertisement or promotional, not a legitimate article. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it sounds a lot like an ad, even when it's not labeled as one, and perhaps we should not use it. OTOH it refers to local TV broadcasts... I won't debate this now, but you can't call every bit of news promotional, only because it does not represent your POV. I thought maybe it could be used to substantiate Rawat's seemingly new approach to propagation, where meditation techniques and Knowledge are not primarily advertised anymore, but the subject of global peace through individual peace, because this is what he has been awarded for internationally on many occasions. The source seems to reflect that, no matter if editorial or promotional.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

i understand that from "surrender your life to me" to "is there any knowledge?" is a long way and the new development deserves mentioning. But maybe with a more reliable source, we still have wiki standards. if it keeps to be like that there will be usable links to videos in the future i think. Surdas (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

'Ambassador of Peace'

I propose this addition to the cult-leader sentence in the summary:

"In the 21st Century he has frequently been introduced by the honorary title Ambassador of Peace.".[Shanti Ayadurai, The Malaysian Times, 'Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison', 2012, http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/

Roberta Senese in Provincia di Potenza, Portale istituzionale 2011, http://www.provincia.potenza.it/provincia/detail.jsp?otype=1101&id=120788&sec=111375, 2011

News-clip on razor-tv (tv-news-channel of the Straits Times), 'Ambassador of Peace honoured at Peace Forum', Singapore, 2012 http://www.razor.tv/video/747624/ambassador-of-peace-honoured-at-peace-forum

Shanty Dewi Ayadurai, 'WAF Award 2014 Sees Ground-breaking Initiatives Towards Food & Water Security', on Bernama, National News Agency of Malaysia, http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435 ]

I picked four different independent, retrievable public sources from different levels of media.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

anyway, i don't think those sources are really represenative. Not one single main stream media recognizes rawat as "ambassador of peace". In fact, what is this title about anyway? What does it say? i mean, if you read the article it starts with rawat trying to spread his meditation technics. And now there is a claim that he spreads, transports or propagates peace in general, which is rather deceptive, because it is still spreading his technics, he has to offer and nothing else. Shall Wikipedia add to his reputation by acknowledging those tacticts? Surdas (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

and btw, is it ambassador for peace or ambassador of peace? It might be a minor grammatical issue, but not for a title. It shöuld be one way not both. Or is it 2 different titles? Please explain. Surdas (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When you look at Google entries, Ambassador Of Peace seems to prevail. I'm changing the proposed sentence accordingly. Thanks. And obviously there has been a change of tactics, but I don't see it as "deceptive". I don't know of any secondary source covering this interesting issue, so we have to leave the reader to his own conclusions - but that's why it is relevant to mention that change in public persona. I agree, that the relation between the experience of inner peace and its social manifestations is not explicitely covered in the article. Something could be mentioned in the "Teachings"-section, or in connection with the 'Peace Education Program'. But that is no reason to omit mentioning the use of the title in the lede, making it a little more balanced.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ditkoff/jeremy-gilley-and-prem-ra_b_4001826.html--Rainer P. (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Mitch Ditkoff is a decades-long devotee of Prem Rawat, so his article isn't neutral or objective, it's entirely promotional. Is Huffington Post even a reliable source? It's considered a news aggregator and a blog, no? Additionally, Rawat hasn't been known or introduced as "Ambassador of Peace" in the 21st century -- that's a development in the past two or three years. In the early part of the 21st century, he was written about by TPRF as an "inspirational speaker." I would say that if you are going to include the Ambassador of Peace moniker, you also ought to drop the "21st century part" and just add a phrase to the end of the first sentence in the lede as follows (which will also cut down on number of words in lede, which is Francis's concern):

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Inspirational Speaker, and Ambassador of Peace." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And then have

In the 2010s Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

in the 1983-present section, with Ditkoff included in the refs. Would work for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

i am fine with that as well Surdas (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Thx! Sylviecyn (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No. 1) The Huffington Post has published that article in its editorial section, not as a press-release or advertisement, and you cannot dismiss it, just because you don't like its content. Ditkoff was paid for it, and his personal convictions are not to be censored here. In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank (...) In 2012, The Huffington Post won the Pulitzer Prize (...) The Huffington Post won the 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards for Best Politics Blog (...) The Huffington Post is ranked the most powerful blog in the world by The Observer (all in Wikipedia). I'm not sure John McGregor's article in The Sydney Morning Herald ('Blinded by the Light') carries similar merits, yet it is footnoted in the article (#134). If you can find a RS for 'inspirational speaker', that's fine with me, we can mention that, too. 2) You are throwing together terms of endearment, titels, attributions together without distinction. That may save some words, but makes the lede less concise. I'm sure we can find ways to make the lede shorter, without giving it an additional contemptuous slant. 3) Prem Rawat was declared 'Ambassador of Peace' by Pierre Weil, director of the 'University of Peace' in Florianopolis, Brazil. The ceremony was documented. Pierre Weil died in 2008, so the event must have been before that. Just saying.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 1

Moot, the source is accepted by all who contributed to this thread thus far, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 2

sorry, i don't understand. what is for you contemptuous? Surdas (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Acting like the subject is not worthy of a minimum of precision. A stylistic device common in politics and satire, but not in encyclopedia.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 3

That would be 2006:

• "Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace." in US Newswire 26 october 2006.
• "Prem Rawat: Awards" at www.premrawat.com (retrieved 2014)

So, updated:

From 2006 Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but I feel that 'promote' and 'qualifier' convey a subtext that is not accounted for in the sources or in the article body. Suggestion: From 2006 on Rawat was often announced as 'Ambassador of Peace'.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the above because Rawat definitely is being promoted as "Ambassador of Peace." Do you agree with the above-mentioned proposal or not? If not, why not? Please remember to be civil. I'm not being contemptuous. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "promote" is correct: when typing "prem rawat"+"ambassador of peace" in google the return is 100% self-published sources for the first pages, I think at least 95% of these by Rawat or those supporting him. The promotion dwarfs whatever neutral messaging there might be. Look also to the content of this very talk page: without promotion we wouldn't even have started talking about this qualifier.

"qualifier": "epithet" or "honorific" would work too for me. "qualifier" is however not conveying a message ("honorific" is, but in this case defensible). "designation" might work too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all the sources show that he is announced as A.o.P. A formal designation is not really accounted for, except in the Florianopolis-report, which is not (yet) being used here. What's the sweat in accepting my proposal From 2006 on Rawat has often been announced as 'Ambassador of Peace'? It is simple, short, neutral, and unequivocal. If there is no difference, we should just use it. If there still is a hidden subtext to convey, it has to be explained. The set proportion between RS and promotional material is naturally asymmetric and can not be used as an argument. The promotion happened after the bestowal of the title. 'epithet' will only be understood by a minority of readers, 'honorific' will read horrific.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Maybe 'introduced' would do as well. What do stylistically assured English speakers think? Announced or introduced?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Given the title of Ambassador of Peace" works for me. It's an insignificant designation, btw and doesn't have much meaning. If you google ambassador of peace, there are hundreds of people who have this designation around the world. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) So do we basically agree on 2006 Rawat was given the title of 'Ambassador of Peace', plus sources?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK for 1983–Present section when properly sourced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

agree,go ahead Surdas (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the lede, replace

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar.

by

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace.

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'Perfect Master' 'Inspirational speaker' and 'Lord of the Universe' were not denominations and don't belong in this list.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

yes they do, there are sources from divine times etc. and interviews with rawat that support this view, so far perfect master and lord of the universe are concerned, i am not sure about inspirational speaker. and who calls rawat ambassador of peace? his disciples? it is just in some press releases. maybe we should scratch ambassador of peace again if it is not worth being mentioned. Surdas (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Don't mix up his actual denominations with all kinds of things other people called him. That's what I mentioned above by 'contemptuous stylistic device'. I don't expect you to respect this, but I am surprised Francis falls for it. I won't.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

please stay with the facts. Those "other people" were his disciples, the same people that called him Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar Surdas (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., above you said to me "You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it." No one is being contemptuous, and please stop saying that because it's uncivil. The only reason we are having this discussion is because you are proposing the edits. You're not going to get very far with fellow editors if you keep calling them "contemptuous" which means "hateful." Also, you're using the term "denomination" incorrectly. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Names are one thing, attributions are another. Sorry for maybe not being sufficiently precise with 'denomination', blame it on my deficits in your language, I'm trying my best. When you indiscriminately pile names and attributions, you make the whole thing sound like a joke, which is disrespectful. Certainly you would not do that deliberately. 'Lord of the Universe' is neither a name nor a title that Rawat was publicly introduced with, except perhaps in mockery. 'Inspirational speaker' can not be sourced properly. Remember, I did not call my fellow editors contemptuous, but a certain unencyclopedic style device. I am proposing those edits to adjust the lede to new sources and the article content, which has undergone some changes, as can be expected with a living, active person who was far ahead of his time at the outset and is slowly beginning to find recognition (OR). Let's give the reader a chance!--Rainer P. (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I would add 2006 Rawat was given the title of 'Ambassador of Peace', plus sources, right after Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.

the term "lord of the universe" was introduced to his audience, they even had a song they sang for him that was named such. In an interview he even explains how he feels being lord of the universe. maybe you have forgotten all that, though it's hard for me to believe ELAN VITAL 1978 Summer Edition. Attributes and names? maharaji and maharaj ji , the ultimate ruler- balyogeshwar , born king of yogis. Lord of the universe and perfect master fit in perfectly in that row and i only want to complete the list when starting with new attributes/names Surdas (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rennie Davis called Rawat "Lord of the Universe" and it was written about in the book Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Shri Hans Films (a legal trade name business of Divine Light Mission) produced the movies "Lord of the Universe," (not to be confused with the documentary Lord of the Universe), and "Satguru Has Come," and Shri Hans Records, also a part of DLM, produced a record album called "Lord of the Universe." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know all that. Maybe it might even be interesting to have a whole historic chapter with all the attributes that have been attached to him in the course of time and the controversies they warranted. But it does not belong in the lede and should not be indiscriminately piled up. If you want that, it needs to be explained in historic context and not just be used like ammunition in an old controversy. It takes some moderation to present the 70s style to modern readers without creating the impression it's all about another planet. Here we have to find a neutral and reasonable way to present the changes in names, and the way public media have presented/are presenting him. Let's not filibuster the necessary changes in the lede. And since when are ancient publications of Divine Light Mission used as sources here? For a reader, it should be discernible, whether he is presented historic material or valid modern sources. Getting these mixed up is confusing or misleading. The lede has grown too long because of detractors' desire to include as much as possible of the obsolete stuff, and then there seems to be no more room for modern information. You will see that a lot can actually go or be moved into the article body, when we finally move on. For the time being, I'd like to repeat my proposal.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame me for the lede, you're the one who keeps proposing edits, not me! Once again, this is a biography, so nothing in it is obsolete or outdated. It's the history of a person's life based on reliable sources. It's not the fault of everybody else in the world that Prem Rawat has changed the names of his organizations so much, and that he has had too many a/k/a's in his life that make recognition of him difficult to people who don't know of him. This is a factual biography that is based upon reliable sources. This is also not an advertisement but an informational article. You can't blank out Prem Rawat's past because you don't like it anymore. Btw, I did not say that DLM publications were going to be used as sources. I was addressing your denial the past references of Rawat as LOTU (Lord of the Universe). Sylviecyn (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we're at the point again where a neutral voice or two could be helpful.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

References

As proposed before I think that giving references formatted *exactly* as they could be used in the article would be a good step. Let me give some examples:

• known as Perfect Master
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129
  • Hinduism Today 1983
• known as Lord of the Universe
  • Blau, Eleanor "Guru's Followers Cheer 'Millennium' in Festivities in Astrodome", New York Times (November 12, 1973)
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129

(sometimes a source already listed in the References section can be called by author/journal-date, otherwise the longer author-publication-publisher-date as explained above is a minimum)

This requires some discipline but may, I hope, diminish talk meandering off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perfect Master and Lord of the Universe as a title accepted by Rawat
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, we can surely find sources for Rawat also being called e.g. Sant Ji, Child Guru, Boy God and "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", to enrich the list. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace.

a good idea.

What do we have thus far:

• Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe and Ambassador of Peace are all (honorific) titles one way or another accepted by Rawat, and we have reliable third-party references for that. These are all in tertiary sources too, and/or used several times in secondary sources. These are the most recognisable ones. The additional ones proposed by Rainer P. appear to be less so by me.
• inspirational speaker is not a title in that sense. Still, it fits in the known as list. Here's why I think that is a good idea: including it makes the first sentence of the lede an excellent summary of the whole article, including the low profile episode that lasted several years. There's references enough to confirm the low profile approach Rawat took for a considerable period, and that inspirational speaker is what he wanted to be known as during most of that period.

This is an answer to Rainer P.'s why "Francis falls for it"[1] Nonetheless I'd ask Rainer P. not to use expressions in that vein on fellow-editors any more. Not that I'm that touchy, usually I'd let it go. It's about this talk page: high standard of mutual respect please.

I've been looking around a bit yesterday, there are apparently sources for the inspirational speaker qualification, so that's what I would like to concentrate on now, find the best of these sources and list them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be some clue for the reader, that e.g. between Balyogeshwar and Ambassador of Peace lie 40-50 years. Otherwise it is as disinformative as it is informative. Don't you agree? It's a bit like placing Einstein's Nobel prize right next to his grade school reports. Perhaps we could add who called him what and when, at least in footnotes right on the spot, so it becomes more transparent. In this context, I find the 'low profile episode' interesting, can it be sourced? My objective is to reflect already in the lede that there has been a lot of changes in the course of one evolution, which requires a certain degree of understanding, but it should be possible. Francis, sorry for my personal remarks about you. I have witnessed several well-meaning editors losing the middle lane in this extremely trappy and polarizing field, while trying to maintain NPOV. I really appreciate your excellent amount of effort for this article.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in the Contemporary World, by Alan Aldridge, Publisher: Polity Press, 2007, pp. 58-59, has a couple of paragraphs about Rawat and DLM that refer to Prem Rawat as an inspiration speaker. I'm sorry I don't have the time to post about this further right now. I can't figure out how to copy passages from Google books so please go to the link and search for Prem Rawat in the book or go to page 58. The blurb starts on the middle of page 58. So, this is a source for "inspirational speaker," please read the whole thing and let me know what you think, Rainer P. I think this blurb also explains the transitions over the years, and might give you a source/cite to cover a short explanation about Rawat's transitions, as you described above. Let's discuss this. I'm being open minded today. It's the 4th of July tomorrow in America so I'll be offline. Woohoo! It's picnic, fireworks, and party time. :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, SylvieCyn! I guess we can accept this as a source for "inspirational speaker", though I remember Rawat himself did not like that label. Aldridge's description does not get beyond the epoch of Elan Vital, but I think his reasoning, that Elan Vital has sought to get out of the fireline of 'adverse publicity' is acceptable. Then later, TPRF and WOPG are in fact obviously trying hard to get publicity on their own terms. I think, this development ist also worth mentioning, but is not covered by Aldrige. The primacy of individual needs over social needs is also relevant, especially concerning peace, but I do not share his seeming dichotomy of "Originally... but now..." His take on Rawat is rather short, compared to e.g. the more elaborate Chryssides and Geaves. I understand it is hard for book authors to keep pace with the development of our subject. The mass media are quick, but superficial. Scientists are thorough, but tend to be outdated by the time their results are published.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede too long

The lede is too long as is. If we're going to have anything additional in the lede (like mentioned in previous section) the lede needs to be shortened.

step 1

I propose to start by moving the two sentences explaining the teachings to the approprate section (the section on teachings), and hyperlink the spin-out article on teachings from the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

step 2

I propose to remove

, which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion

from the lede. The article is on the person, not the DLM organization (which has a separate article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. DLM has its separate article but the sources refer to both the titular leader of the organization, Prem Rawat, and DLM, the organization. Additionally, DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death. It's a short sentence and should remain, imo, because it informs the readers. Also, Francis, please don't make any edits to the article unless they've been discussed here and consensus has been reached. That's a long-standing practice on the Rawat articles. Thanks! P.S. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

All of what you say above is still in the lede, including what sources say more specifically about Rawat ("... has been called a cult leader ...")

It's about the summary in the lede. BTW, I liked your summary

DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death."

which already includes half of the 2nd paragraph too. You see, much less words than currently. That's what I would go for. But lets take this step by step. first half of second paragraph would be my next step.

While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

(...short explanation...)

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)

===Elan Vital===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

(...short explanation...)

===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===

(...description...)

So you see it's not about losing the content, but shortening the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Step 1 revisited

Francis, I strongly object to your removal of 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. from the lede. It is the absolute reason for his notability. Every subsequent mention of Rawat in the media and scholarly sources come from that fact. Sorry I didn't notice your maneuver earlier, but please revert it. There is no need for depleting the lede of any info on his teachings, and this one was a very concise roundup. I suggest you revert that one. There is no mutual agreement for this change. Sorry for it being partly my fault, I should have objected earlier. If you feel there is excess supply of info on his teachings in the lede, we can discuss if the second sentence - Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches has to be in the lede, although I think it is a fine precis of what it's all about. So, please don't make edits that have not been properly discussed and for which an agreement has been found - in that I even agree with Sylviecyn, as long as that settlement has not been cancelled. BTW this strange all-must-agree-rule, which is certainly the cause of a lot of frustration for editors, has at least prevented edit-wars on this article and should therefore not lightly be abandoned.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See above #step 1

Re. "It is the absolute reason for his notability" — I beg to differ, this is not what the sources appear to say. His young age when he came to prominence, the success of the organizations in which he was embedded, etc. appear much more as the reasons why he was noted in the first place, a.k.a. the most obvious reasons for his notability. This includes the fact that he teaches (Techniques of) Knowledge. The content of these Knowledge teachings appears to be rather directed at an internal public, as such not very much contributing to how he is known to the public at large.

See also what I wrote below:

• typically, for instance looking at the most recent press report (BERNAMA) we find (in the single sentence devoted to Rawat):
  • Ambassador for Peace
  • first Patron of WAF Award
  • keynote address

...a.k.a. zero info on the content of Rawat's message... (...) the content of the message of that person seems not to attract any particular attention from an average reporter.

As a way to appraoch this I'd propose to start with giving proper references for

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 that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches.

could anyone help with that? (use formats as discussed below preferably)

E.g. "Words of Peace" is a widespread body of messages by Rawat, do we have any third-party sources summarizing the content of these? That would be very helpful in this context. Or are "Words of Peace" not teachings as such? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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.[citation needed] Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches.[citation needed] - this is taken from the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, Scholars Section. It is also referenced there, we could use the same sources, there seems to be plenty. Let's not lose sight of important points which I feel should be considered in the lede - 1. He was notable in India from the age of eight as a child guru. 2. Therefore he first came to prominence in India, not the US. Wikipedia should be universal, not give preference to US viewpoint. Hence the titles Bal Yogeshwar and Sant Ji. 3. He first came to prominence in the west when he travelled to England, then Germany and then the US. 4. He was notable for being a young guru with thousands of followers for several years before anyone mentioned cult. So while I agree that the introduction is too long, it should not be reduced solely to the round-up of the Western news machinery, which was certainly unprepared to cope with the situation and reacted in its usual banal and sensationalistic way, when there are sources of higher quality.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Or are "Words of Peace" not teachings as such? No, they aren't. They are one of Rawat's media for spreading his teachings. On Google it is hard to find a secondary source, in an abundance of primary sources. The TV-series is said to have been awarded several times, there should be footprints of that in independent media. I'll try and search for some.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC) What could we state on grounds of a primary source? WP says: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. So we could say that there IS such a thing and what they offer and provide a link, without further interpretation.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) WOPG is mentioned here: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ WOPG does nothing but organise and record events with Prem Rawat. Unlike TPRF, it is not notable in its own right. So there are few secondary sources. But it certainly is noteworthy in his bio.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) The same link can be used to reference TPRF, the Peace Education Programme (PEP), and the Ambassador of Peace.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How about replacing

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge".

by

Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.

alternatively

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", containing the message that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy.

references

?

(note: nothing needs the qualifier "core" in the lede: everything in the lede is automatically core or it wouldn't be there)

I thank Rainer P. for drawing our attention to the wider picture. The only practical way to approach this is however, afaics, step by step. The challenge is indeed to keep the bigger picture in mind while taking these steps.

As a sidestep (also bigger picture) the 2012 Malaysian Times article indicates BERNAMA TV as the broadcaster of Rawat's Words of Peace. Is that the same BERNAMA as the one from the WAF award press report? How independent are these sources? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bernama is the official Malaysian news agency. It can be considered completely neutral as far as Rawat is concerned.

I like this proposal: Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge",[1] and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.[2]--Rainer P. (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

content of public discourses criticism

He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] is not representative for what is said in the article body, but rather an exceptional statement, adding to the biased flavor of that paragraph (three times 'cult' in one short paragraph - and hardly anywhere in the article body). It should not be at all in the summary.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I disagree:

I disagree:

• that part of the criticism is taken up at least 4 times in the article:
  • Melton and Kent in separate paragraphs in the History section
  • Schnabel and Kent in 4th paragraph of Teachings section
  • Schnabel in Reception section.
• typically, for instance looking at the most recent press report (BERNAMA) we find (in the single sentence devoted to Rawat):
  • Ambassador for Peace
  • first Patron of WAF Award
  • keynote address

...a.k.a. zero info on the content of Rawat's message... putting the person in a favourable light, but the content of the message of that person seems not to attract any particular attention from an average reporter.

I agree:

• currently from the four mentionings of that part of the criticism as noted above three are found at the end of a paragraph. The only retake of that content in the middle of a paragraph (based in part on Melton 1986) is a bit sideways as it seems rather to refer to Melton's "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" than to Melton's "...the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance". Yes, at least the impression is that this is not treated properly in the article, like for instance the lifestyle criticism that gets a separate elaborate paragraph uniquely devoted to that topic.
• More popular press reports of the 70s that had the same criticism on the content of Rawat's message don't seem to have been mentioned in this respect in the article yet.

In sum, in so far that there might be an impression that this part of the lede is not treated properly in the body of the article, it would be rather the article's shortcoming than that of the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

'Ambassador of Peace'

I propose this addition to the cult-leader sentence in the summary:

"In the 21st Century he has frequently been introduced by the honorary title Ambassador of Peace.".[Shanti Ayadurai, The Malaysian Times, 'Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison', 2012, http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/

Roberta Senese in Provincia di Potenza, Portale istituzionale 2011, http://www.provincia.potenza.it/provincia/detail.jsp?otype=1101&id=120788&sec=111375, 2011

News-clip on razor-tv (tv-news-channel of the Straits Times), 'Ambassador of Peace honoured at Peace Forum', Singapore, 2012 http://www.razor.tv/video/747624/ambassador-of-peace-honoured-at-peace-forum

Shanty Dewi Ayadurai, 'WAF Award 2014 Sees Ground-breaking Initiatives Towards Food & Water Security', on Bernama, National News Agency of Malaysia, http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435 ]

I picked four different independent, retrievable public sources from different levels of media.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

anyway, i don't think those sources are really represenative. Not one single main stream media recognizes rawat as "ambassador of peace". In fact, what is this title about anyway? What does it say? i mean, if you read the article it starts with rawat trying to spread his meditation technics. And now there is a claim that he spreads, transports or propagates peace in general, which is rather deceptive, because it is still spreading his technics, he has to offer and nothing else. Shall Wikipedia add to his reputation by acknowledging those tacticts? Surdas (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

and btw, is it ambassador for peace or ambassador of peace? It might be a minor grammatical issue, but not for a title. It shöuld be one way not both. Or is it 2 different titles? Please explain. Surdas (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When you look at Google entries, Ambassador Of Peace seems to prevail. I'm changing the proposed sentence accordingly. Thanks. And obviously there has been a change of tactics, but I don't see it as "deceptive". I don't know of any secondary source covering this interesting issue, so we have to leave the reader to his own conclusions - but that's why it is relevant to mention that change in public persona. I agree, that the relation between the experience of inner peace and its social manifestations is not explicitely covered in the article. Something could be mentioned in the "Teachings"-section, or in connection with the 'Peace Education Program'. But that is no reason to omit mentioning the use of the title in the lede, making it a little more balanced.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ditkoff/jeremy-gilley-and-prem-ra_b_4001826.html--Rainer P. (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Mitch Ditkoff is a decades-long devotee of Prem Rawat, so his article isn't neutral or objective, it's entirely promotional. Is Huffington Post even a reliable source? It's considered a news aggregator and a blog, no? Additionally, Rawat hasn't been known or introduced as "Ambassador of Peace" in the 21st century -- that's a development in the past two or three years. In the early part of the 21st century, he was written about by TPRF as an "inspirational speaker." I would say that if you are going to include the Ambassador of Peace moniker, you also ought to drop the "21st century part" and just add a phrase to the end of the first sentence in the lede as follows (which will also cut down on number of words in lede, which is Francis's concern):

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Inspirational Speaker, and Ambassador of Peace." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And then have

In the 2010s Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

in the 1983-present section, with Ditkoff included in the refs. Would work for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

i am fine with that as well Surdas (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Thx! Sylviecyn (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No. 1) The Huffington Post has published that article in its editorial section, not as a press-release or advertisement, and you cannot dismiss it, just because you don't like its content. Ditkoff was paid for it, and his personal convictions are not to be censored here. In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank (...) In 2012, The Huffington Post won the Pulitzer Prize (...) The Huffington Post won the 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards for Best Politics Blog (...) The Huffington Post is ranked the most powerful blog in the world by The Observer (all in Wikipedia). I'm not sure John McGregor's article in The Sydney Morning Herald ('Blinded by the Light') carries similar merits, yet it is footnoted in the article (#134). If you can find a RS for 'inspirational speaker', that's fine with me, we can mention that, too. 2) You are throwing together terms of endearment, titels, attributions together without distinction. That may save some words, but makes the lede less concise. I'm sure we can find ways to make the lede shorter, without giving it an additional contemptuous slant. 3) Prem Rawat was declared 'Ambassador of Peace' by Pierre Weil, director of the 'University of Peace' in Florianopolis, Brazil. The ceremony was documented. Pierre Weil died in 2008, so the event must have been before that. Just saying.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 1

Moot, the source is accepted by all who contributed to this thread thus far, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 2

sorry, i don't understand. what is for you contemptuous? Surdas (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Acting like the subject is not worthy of a minimum of precision. A stylistic device common in politics and satire, but not in encyclopedia.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re. 3

That would be 2006:

• "Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace." in US Newswire 26 october 2006.
• "Prem Rawat: Awards" at www.premrawat.com (retrieved 2014)

So, updated:

From 2006 Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but I feel that 'promote' and 'qualifier' convey a subtext that is not accounted for in the sources or in the article body. Suggestion: From 2006 on Rawat was often announced as 'Ambassador of Peace'.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the above because Rawat definitely is being promoted as "Ambassador of Peace." Do you agree with the above-mentioned proposal or not? If not, why not? Please remember to be civil. I'm not being contemptuous. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "promote" is correct: when typing "prem rawat"+"ambassador of peace" in google the return is 100% self-published sources for the first pages, I think at least 95% of these by Rawat or those supporting him. The promotion dwarfs whatever neutral messaging there might be. Look also to the content of this very talk page: without promotion we wouldn't even have started talking about this qualifier.

"qualifier": "epithet" or "honorific" would work too for me. "qualifier" is however not conveying a message ("honorific" is, but in this case defensible). "designation" might work too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all the sources show that he is announced as A.o.P. A formal designation is not really accounted for, except in the Florianopolis-report, which is not (yet) being used here. What's the sweat in accepting my proposal From 2006 on Rawat has often been announced as 'Ambassador of Peace'? It is simple, short, neutral, and unequivocal. If there is no difference, we should just use it. If there still is a hidden subtext to convey, it has to be explained. The set proportion between RS and promotional material is naturally asymmetric and can not be used as an argument. The promotion happened after the bestowal of the title. 'epithet' will only be understood by a minority of readers, 'honorific' will read horrific.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Maybe 'introduced' would do as well. What do stylistically assured English speakers think? Announced or introduced?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Given the title of Ambassador of Peace" works for me. It's an insignificant designation, btw and doesn't have much meaning. If you google ambassador of peace, there are hundreds of people who have this designation around the world. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) So do we basically agree on 2006 Rawat was given the title of 'Ambassador of Peace', plus sources?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK for 1983–Present section when properly sourced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

agree,go ahead Surdas (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the lede, replace

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar.

by

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace.

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'Perfect Master' 'Inspirational speaker' and 'Lord of the Universe' were not denominations and don't belong in this list.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

yes they do, there are sources from divine times etc. and interviews with rawat that support this view, so far perfect master and lord of the universe are concerned, i am not sure about inspirational speaker. and who calls rawat ambassador of peace? his disciples? it is just in some press releases. maybe we should scratch ambassador of peace again if it is not worth being mentioned. Surdas (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Don't mix up his actual denominations with all kinds of things other people called him. That's what I mentioned above by 'contemptuous stylistic device'. I don't expect you to respect this, but I am surprised Francis falls for it. I won't.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

please stay with the facts. Those "other people" were his disciples, the same people that called him Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar Surdas (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., above you said to me "You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it." No one is being contemptuous, and please stop saying that because it's uncivil. The only reason we are having this discussion is because you are proposing the edits. You're not going to get very far with fellow editors if you keep calling them "contemptuous" which means "hateful." Also, you're using the term "denomination" incorrectly. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Names are one thing, attributions are another. Sorry for maybe not being sufficiently precise with 'denomination', blame it on my deficits in your language, I'm trying my best. When you indiscriminately pile names and attributions, you make the whole thing sound like a joke, which is disrespectful. Certainly you would not do that deliberately. 'Lord of the Universe' is neither a name nor a title that Rawat was publicly introduced with, except perhaps in mockery. 'Inspirational speaker' can not be sourced properly. Remember, I did not call my fellow editors contemptuous, but a certain unencyclopedic style device. I am proposing those edits to adjust the lede to new sources and the article content, which has undergone some changes, as can be expected with a living, active person who was far ahead of his time at the outset and is slowly beginning to find recognition (OR). Let's give the reader a chance!--Rainer P. (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I would add 2006 Rawat was given the title of 'Ambassador of Peace', plus sources, right after Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.

the term "lord of the universe" was introduced to his audience, they even had a song they sang for him that was named such. In an interview he even explains how he feels being lord of the universe. maybe you have forgotten all that, though it's hard for me to believe ELAN VITAL 1978 Summer Edition. Attributes and names? maharaji and maharaj ji , the ultimate ruler- balyogeshwar , born king of yogis. Lord of the universe and perfect master fit in perfectly in that row and i only want to complete the list when starting with new attributes/names Surdas (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rennie Davis called Rawat "Lord of the Universe" and it was written about in the book Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Shri Hans Films (a legal trade name business of Divine Light Mission) produced the movies "Lord of the Universe," (not to be confused with the documentary Lord of the Universe), and "Satguru Has Come," and Shri Hans Records, also a part of DLM, produced a record album called "Lord of the Universe." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know all that. Maybe it might even be interesting to have a whole historic chapter with all the attributes that have been attached to him in the course of time and the controversies they warranted. But it does not belong in the lede and should not be indiscriminately piled up. If you want that, it needs to be explained in historic context and not just be used like ammunition in an old controversy. It takes some moderation to present the 70s style to modern readers without creating the impression it's all about another planet. Here we have to find a neutral and reasonable way to present the changes in names, and the way public media have presented/are presenting him. Let's not filibuster the necessary changes in the lede. And since when are ancient publications of Divine Light Mission used as sources here? For a reader, it should be discernible, whether he is presented historic material or valid modern sources. Getting these mixed up is confusing or misleading. The lede has grown too long because of detractors' desire to include as much as possible of the obsolete stuff, and then there seems to be no more room for modern information. You will see that a lot can actually go or be moved into the article body, when we finally move on. For the time being, I'd like to repeat my proposal.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame me for the lede, you're the one who keeps proposing edits, not me! Once again, this is a biography, so nothing in it is obsolete or outdated. It's the history of a person's life based on reliable sources. It's not the fault of everybody else in the world that Prem Rawat has changed the names of his organizations so much, and that he has had too many a/k/a's in his life that make recognition of him difficult to people who don't know of him. This is a factual biography that is based upon reliable sources. This is also not an advertisement but an informational article. You can't blank out Prem Rawat's past because you don't like it anymore. Btw, I did not say that DLM publications were going to be used as sources. I was addressing your denial the past references of Rawat as LOTU (Lord of the Universe). Sylviecyn (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we're at the point again where a neutral voice or two could be helpful.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

References

As proposed before I think that giving references formatted *exactly* as they could be used in the article would be a good step. Let me give some examples:

• known as Perfect Master
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129
  • Hinduism Today 1983
• known as Lord of the Universe
  • Blau, Eleanor "Guru's Followers Cheer 'Millennium' in Festivities in Astrodome", New York Times (November 12, 1973)
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129

(sometimes a source already listed in the References section can be called by author/journal-date, otherwise the longer author-publication-publisher-date as explained above is a minimum)

This requires some discipline but may, I hope, diminish talk meandering off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perfect Master and Lord of the Universe as a title accepted by Rawat
  • Bromley & Shupe 1981 p. 129

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, we can surely find sources for Rawat also being called e.g. Sant Ji, Child Guru, Boy God and "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", to enrich the list. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace.

a good idea.

What do we have thus far:

• Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe and Ambassador of Peace are all (honorific) titles one way or another accepted by Rawat, and we have reliable third-party references for that. These are all in tertiary sources too, and/or used several times in secondary sources. These are the most recognisable ones. The additional ones proposed by Rainer P. appear to be less so by me.
• inspirational speaker is not a title in that sense. Still, it fits in the known as list. Here's why I think that is a good idea: including it makes the first sentence of the lede an excellent summary of the whole article, including the low profile episode that lasted several years. There's references enough to confirm the low profile approach Rawat took for a considerable period, and that inspirational speaker is what he wanted to be known as during most of that period.

This is an answer to Rainer P.'s why "Francis falls for it"[2] Nonetheless I'd ask Rainer P. not to use expressions in that vein on fellow-editors any more. Not that I'm that touchy, usually I'd let it go. It's about this talk page: high standard of mutual respect please.

I've been looking around a bit yesterday, there are apparently sources for the inspirational speaker qualification, so that's what I would like to concentrate on now, find the best of these sources and list them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be some clue for the reader, that e.g. between Balyogeshwar and Ambassador of Peace lie 40-50 years. Otherwise it is as disinformative as it is informative. Don't you agree? It's a bit like placing Einstein's Nobel prize right next to his grade school reports. Perhaps we could add who called him what and when, at least in footnotes right on the spot, so it becomes more transparent. In this context, I find the 'low profile episode' interesting, can it be sourced? My objective is to reflect already in the lede that there has been a lot of changes in the course of one evolution, which requires a certain degree of understanding, but it should be possible. Francis, sorry for my personal remarks about you. I have witnessed several well-meaning editors losing the middle lane in this extremely trappy and polarizing field, while trying to maintain NPOV. I really appreciate your excellent amount of effort for this article.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in the Contemporary World, by Alan Aldridge, Publisher: Polity Press, 2007, pp. 58-59, has a couple of paragraphs about Rawat and DLM that refer to Prem Rawat as an inspiration speaker. I'm sorry I don't have the time to post about this further right now. I can't figure out how to copy passages from Google books so please go to the link and search for Prem Rawat in the book or go to page 58. The blurb starts on the middle of page 58. So, this is a source for "inspirational speaker," please read the whole thing and let me know what you think, Rainer P. I think this blurb also explains the transitions over the years, and might give you a source/cite to cover a short explanation about Rawat's transitions, as you described above. Let's discuss this. I'm being open minded today. It's the 4th of July tomorrow in America so I'll be offline. Woohoo! It's picnic, fireworks, and party time. :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, SylvieCyn! I guess we can accept this as a source for "inspirational speaker", though I remember Rawat himself did not like that label. Aldridge's description does not get beyond the epoch of Elan Vital, but I think his reasoning, that Elan Vital has sought to get out of the fireline of 'adverse publicity' is acceptable. Then later, TPRF and WOPG are in fact obviously trying hard to get publicity on their own terms. I think, this development ist also worth mentioning, but is not covered by Aldrige. The primacy of individual needs over social needs is also relevant, especially concerning peace, but I do not share his seeming dichotomy of "Originally... but now..." His take on Rawat is rather short, compared to e.g. the more elaborate Chryssides and Geaves. I understand it is hard for book authors to keep pace with the development of our subject. The mass media are quick, but superficial. Scientists are thorough, but tend to be outdated by the time their results are published.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede too long

The lede is too long as is. If we're going to have anything additional in the lede (like mentioned in previous section) the lede needs to be shortened.

step 1

I propose to start by moving the two sentences explaining the teachings to the approprate section (the section on teachings), and hyperlink the spin-out article on teachings from the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

step 2

I propose to remove

, which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion

from the lede. The article is on the person, not the DLM organization (which has a separate article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. DLM has its separate article but the sources refer to both the titular leader of the organization, Prem Rawat, and DLM, the organization. Additionally, DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death. It's a short sentence and should remain, imo, because it informs the readers. Also, Francis, please don't make any edits to the article unless they've been discussed here and consensus has been reached. That's a long-standing practice on the Rawat articles. Thanks! P.S. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

All of what you say above is still in the lede, including what sources say more specifically about Rawat ("... has been called a cult leader ...")

It's about the summary in the lede. BTW, I liked your summary

DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death."

which already includes half of the 2nd paragraph too. You see, much less words than currently. That's what I would go for. But lets take this step by step. first half of second paragraph would be my next step.

While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

(...short explanation...)

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)

===Elan Vital===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

(...short explanation...)

===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===

(...description...)

So you see it's not about losing the content, but shortening the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Step 1 revisited

Francis, I strongly object to your removal of 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. from the lede. It is the absolute reason for his notability. Every subsequent mention of Rawat in the media and scholarly sources come from that fact. Sorry I didn't notice your maneuver earlier, but please revert it. There is no need for depleting the lede of any info on his teachings, and this one was a very concise roundup. I suggest you revert that one. There is no mutual agreement for this change. Sorry for it being partly my fault, I should have objected earlier. If you feel there is excess supply of info on his teachings in the lede, we can discuss if the second sentence - Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches has to be in the lede, although I think it is a fine precis of what it's all about. So, please don't make edits that have not been properly discussed and for which an agreement has been found - in that I even agree with Sylviecyn, as long as that settlement has not been cancelled. BTW this strange all-must-agree-rule, which is certainly the cause of a lot of frustration for editors, has at least prevented edit-wars on this article and should therefore not lightly be abandoned.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See above #step 1

Re. "It is the absolute reason for his notability" — I beg to differ, this is not what the sources appear to say. His young age when he came to prominence, the success of the organizations in which he was embedded, etc. appear much more as the reasons why he was noted in the first place, a.k.a. the most obvious reasons for his notability. This includes the fact that he teaches (Techniques of) Knowledge. The content of these Knowledge teachings appears to be rather directed at an internal public, as such not very much contributing to how he is known to the public at large.

See also what I wrote below:

• typically, for instance looking at the most recent press report (BERNAMA) we find (in the single sentence devoted to Rawat):
  • Ambassador for Peace
  • first Patron of WAF Award
  • keynote address

...a.k.a. zero info on the content of Rawat's message... (...) the content of the message of that person seems not to attract any particular attention from an average reporter.

As a way to appraoch this I'd propose to start with giving proper references for

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 that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches.

could anyone help with that? (use formats as discussed below preferably)

E.g. "Words of Peace" is a widespread body of messages by Rawat, do we have any third-party sources summarizing the content of these? That would be very helpful in this context. Or are "Words of Peace" not teachings as such? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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.[citation needed] Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches.[citation needed] - this is taken from the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, Scholars Section. It is also referenced there, we could use the same sources, there seems to be plenty. Let's not lose sight of important points which I feel should be considered in the lede - 1. He was notable in India from the age of eight as a child guru. 2. Therefore he first came to prominence in India, not the US. Wikipedia should be universal, not give preference to US viewpoint. Hence the titles Bal Yogeshwar and Sant Ji. 3. He first came to prominence in the west when he travelled to England, then Germany and then the US. 4. He was notable for being a young guru with thousands of followers for several years before anyone mentioned cult. So while I agree that the introduction is too long, it should not be reduced solely to the round-up of the Western news machinery, which was certainly unprepared to cope with the situation and reacted in its usual banal and sensationalistic way, when there are sources of higher quality.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Or are "Words of Peace" not teachings as such? No, they aren't. They are one of Rawat's media for spreading his teachings. On Google it is hard to find a secondary source, in an abundance of primary sources. The TV-series is said to have been awarded several times, there should be footprints of that in independent media. I'll try and search for some.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC) What could we state on grounds of a primary source? WP says: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. So we could say that there IS such a thing and what they offer and provide a link, without further interpretation.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) WOPG is mentioned here: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ WOPG does nothing but organise and record events with Prem Rawat. Unlike TPRF, it is not notable in its own right. So there are few secondary sources. But it certainly is noteworthy in his bio.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) The same link can be used to reference TPRF, the Peace Education Programme (PEP), and the Ambassador of Peace.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How about replacing

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge".

by

Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.

alternatively

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", containing the message that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy.

references

?

(note: nothing needs the qualifier "core" in the lede: everything in the lede is automatically core or it wouldn't be there)

I thank Rainer P. for drawing our attention to the wider picture. The only practical way to approach this is however, afaics, step by step. The challenge is indeed to keep the bigger picture in mind while taking these steps.

As a sidestep (also bigger picture) the 2012 Malaysian Times article indicates BERNAMA TV as the broadcaster of Rawat's Words of Peace. Is that the same BERNAMA as the one from the WAF award press report? How independent are these sources? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bernama is the official Malaysian news agency. It can be considered completely neutral as far as Rawat is concerned.

I like this proposal: Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge",[1] and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.[2]--Rainer P. (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

content of public discourses criticism

He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] is not representative for what is said in the article body, but rather an exceptional statement, adding to the biased flavor of that paragraph (three times 'cult' in one short paragraph - and hardly anywhere in the article body). It should not be at all in the summary.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I disagree:

I disagree:

• that part of the criticism is taken up at least 4 times in the article:
  • Melton and Kent in separate paragraphs in the History section
  • Schnabel and Kent in 4th paragraph of Teachings section
  • Schnabel in Reception section.
• typically, for instance looking at the most recent press report (BERNAMA) we find (in the single sentence devoted to Rawat):
  • Ambassador for Peace
  • first Patron of WAF Award
  • keynote address

...a.k.a. zero info on the content of Rawat's message... putting the person in a favourable light, but the content of the message of that person seems not to attract any particular attention from an average reporter.

I agree:

• currently from the four mentionings of that part of the criticism as noted above three are found at the end of a paragraph. The only retake of that content in the middle of a paragraph (based in part on Melton 1986) is a bit sideways as it seems rather to refer to Melton's "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" than to Melton's "...the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance". Yes, at least the impression is that this is not treated properly in the article, like for instance the lifestyle criticism that gets a separate elaborate paragraph uniquely devoted to that topic.
• More popular press reports of the 70s that had the same criticism on the content of Rawat's message don't seem to have been mentioned in this respect in the article yet.

In sum, in so far that there might be an impression that this part of the lede is not treated properly in the body of the article, it would be rather the article's shortcoming than that of the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

27.124.20.120 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WAF

I propose to add this paragraph at the bottom of "1983-Present":

Prem Rawat is the first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF) Organisation, which was founded in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. This organisation recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. The 2014 award went to a project team from Zimbabwe for restoring desert lands to agriculture. At the presentation, which was made in Westminster Central Hall, London by HRH Princess Basma bint Ali of Jordan, Prem Rawat gave the keynote address. (source: www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435)

Improvements/objections/contributions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't find Rawat's name on the www.wafaward.org website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.wafaward.org/#!Prem-Rawat-and-Ayrton-Cable/zoom/mainPage/image1yww --Rainer P. (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(added a space to make the link actually work). "Patron" is confirmed by the website. He's apparently not an ambassador of the organisation though (that he would first patron not confirmed by the site). As for the ambassadors:

• Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal: WAF not mentioned in his biography.
• Princess Zama-Zulu of South Africa, apparently no Wikipedia biography.

Speech at 2014 award ceremony confirmed by the press release pdf downoadable from http://www.wafaward.org/#!presswafawardorg/c1x7a That Rawat would have been the keynote speaker not confirmed, much more attention to other speakers in that press release.

Facts can be summarized as follows: Rawat patron of WAF award, speaks at its 2014 ceremony.

Noteworthy or factoid?

Anyway, Rawat's biographical article is not the place to explain (1) what WAF is; (2) what it does; (3) who won its prizes and why; (4) other attendees of its events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

could it be that WAF was founded by premies? Not that they wouldn't be worthy to do that, but i wouldn't call that independent and it should be mentioned as well if is true. Surdas (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, First Patron is said in the Bernama article. I don't see how we have to reappraise the veracity of well established news agencies. As for noteworthyness - if I were a reader interested in information about Rawat, I would of course want to know what he is up to these days - when the article really goes to lengths explaining what he did more than 40 years ago, which might be completely irrelevant for a majority of readers - like e.g. that "smuggeling"-allegation, which has admittedly proved insubstantial, but occupies 140 words in the articel. Noteworthy in a bio? That's why the WAF event, which has obviously actually happened and can be referenced, is briefly and exemplary explained. And, Surdas, do you have any clue that WAF is a Premie-organisation? Please let us know. Summing up these objections, I don't see enough reason not to add the sentences to the article. Maybe we could have some more opinions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(disclosure:) I have no interest in Rawat (vested or otherwise).

Re. "what he is up to these days": no, Wikipedia:NOT#BILLBOARD. There's a link to his website at the bottom of the article, that's where an interested reader would go for learning what he is up to these days. If such events as the WAF award ceremony aren't related there, Wikipedia should not fill in the billboard function for the subject of this biography.

The information on Rawat in the BERNAMA article on WAF is a single sentence, which can badly be compared with the dozens of articles on the 1972 Hans Jayanti, including the articles on the incident with the impounded valuables, which led to a 10-line paragraph (in my browser) in his biography, a paragraph that further is also not exclusively devoted to that incident.

It is simply not possible to blow one and a half line on Rawat from a news agency into a five line paragraph in Wikipedia.

In comparison to the latest addition to the 1983—present section (speaking to 200,000 young persons in India) I think the WAF info of lesser notability.

In sum, no, I can't support this addition to the article. Unless the breadth of Rawat's patronage can be verified in reliable sources and that breadth is very substantial as Surdas seems to suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lwlt9xFydA and if you still have doubts that this is another PR-Machine we can investigate further Surdas (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace One Day is independent from Rawat, but there seem to be touching points. Last year there was a conversation between founder Jeremy Gilley and Rawat. I guess it is Rawat's policy now to make connections for collaboration with other peace initiatives, I have no doubt about that. Maybe Premies found or work for other initiatives as well, I don't know, I hope they do. It will take a lot of effort to bring some peace into this world. But you cannot simply put off any organisation as dependent, when they work with Premies. Maybe there are some Catholics, too, obliged to the Pope...shouldn't that be mentioned?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) BTW there was nothing clandestine about the meeting of Rawat and Gilley. In fact it was recorded and broadcasted, sure you can find it on Google. Watching it, you can easily tell that there is no dependence between the two. And Peace One Day has nothing to do with WAF, as far as I can see.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole video transports rawat's message. Every person starts with peace is.......where the tone should be about food and water in the first place as the title of WAF suggests. But i don't want to play cat and mouse. Yes, the planet needs peace, but i hardly doubt that there will be any success, if you try to trick rawat into any reputation he doesn't deserve. Unfortunately honesty is not interchangeable with devotion, as life has tought me in contrary to what rawat once told me.Surdas (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Surdas, I guess we all are sufficiently familiar with your negative attitude towards the subject, and there is no necessity to have it seep through all your leaks in every contribution. Try to be factual, else I will complain about you. Just to address your recent slips in this thread: What you call the 'PR-Machine' is not a machine, but consists of free, independent and good-willed human beings, who have found an effective way of contributing to a noble cause, no need to denigrate them. It is also not up to WP to define what Rawat deserves. And there is no ground for imputing dishonesty to sincere people, only because you refuse to accept and rather distort their motivation. If you are unable to control this disposition, I'm sure you can easily another forum for it, where it is certainly welcome.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations of primary sources (like what can be found on YouTube) are of no consequence for Wikipedia (unless these interpretations can be found in reliable secondary sources). See WP:PRIMARY for the policy on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?

I suggest for a compromise we boil the paragraph down to something like Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/. I cannot see how anybody would think WP is being used as a billboard.

BTW, as he is increasingly referred to as Ambassador of Peace, like in the Bernama-article, I suggest we add that to the summary, like complementing the sentence "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." It says so further up in this WP-article, and e.g. in the Huffington Post, and of course in Bernama, and many more articles internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?" What I said about interpretation of primary sources was addressed at Surdas. I think Sudas understood what I meant [3] Slightly worried Rainer P apparently doesn't. I recommend a reading of WP:PRIMARY for Rainer P too. If not sufficient: WP:V, WP:RS are recommended reading too.

Re. "Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/." — Could live with that, if this gets enough support from other editors. Personally I still think this of lesser importance than the 200,000 youngsters in Delhi in February, so I'd leave it up to other editors to weigh relative importance.

Re. "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." — Could live with that apart from:

• avoid the word "recent" - replace by "as of ..." or "since ..." with a time indication that fits (go look in secondary sources to find a good indication of the time when this started) (PS: as background information: "recent" has the same problems as "currently", see this discussion taking place at WP:VPP: WP:VPP#Dating articles, use of the word "currently" without a date provided)
• provide direct references for this part of the sentence in the lede too.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if Rawat is the "first patron of an award?" What does "First Patron of Award" even mean and why is it notable? Plus the website for this so-called NGO is called WAFaward.org, not waf.org (which is a website called "We Are Family" that's for for LGTB people in California), nor is this wafAward.org about waterandfood.org, which is another thing altogether. Additionally, I'm solidly against any changes in the lede without strong secondary sources. Why is there only a Malaysian press release about yet nothing is available from news sources in London or the U.S.? Once again, it's not the fault of Wikipedia and its editing standards, if Prem Rawat doesn't rely on mainstream press for his publicity. Making it up doesn't count. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess, the patron of an award is something like a sponsor. The award consits of €10,000, which is a lot for an NGO, and an invaluable increment of recognition. I'm sure there are people who do care.

The website-address is www.wafaward.org/

Within less than five minutes of googling I hit more than a handful of relevant sites that support Rawat being dubbed Ambassador of Peace. (You might notice one of them is Wall Street Journal - but then perhaps Rawat is behind some curtain there, too...)

www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-275086386.html

http://keshabjoshi.com.np/?p=79

www.examiner.com/article/ambassador-of-peace-named-by-president-of-the-basilicata-province-of-italy

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/12/01/European_Parliament_Welcomes_Back_Ambassador_of_Peace_Prem_R_c/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-905478.html#

www.marketwatch.com/story/gang-members-in-ecuador-embrace-peace-education-2013-06-06: --Rainer P. (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., an NGO is a vague description of non-profit organizations. All it means is that a non-profit org is not affiliated with any governments. There's nothing about 10,000 Euros paid for the "First Patron" title. Where did you get that figure? All of the links you posted above are press releases. It says so on each page! They are not legitimate articles written by legitimate, objective journalists, who have no interest in promoting Prem Rawat. For purposes of this article, press releases are considered self-promotion and are not secondary sources. Btw, I got the dig from you "behind some curtain," which you read in a post of mine on the ex-premie forum. It's not necessary to be sarcastic to me because you are expressing your frustration over your inability to provide any reliable secondary sources to justify your proposed edits to this article. The "Ambassador of Peace" moniker is yet another label that Maharaji has placed upon himself and now premies want to advertise him as such. Maybe if Rawat had kept to one name and one title in his lifetime career as a Satguru, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji, Balyogeshwar, Guru, etc., etc., and didn't have so many a/k/a's over the years, he wouldn't have so much trouble getting recognition. I'll fight this because these are self-promoting articles/titles and definitely don't justify any edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for putting it down so clearly. What i really miss in all that, is honesty and dignity. To promote such nonsense, the twisting and writhing, a premie has to undergo if he follows the party line, i am really sorry for them. maybe they don't have any sense for that anymore. Surdas (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go again... Sylviecyn, I have not checked all the links, but e.g. in this one, they explicitely call it an article. Also the Bernama-article, with which we started this thread, is an article, signed by a journalist. You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it. Even primary sources could do that, but there are secondary sources, and even you seem to have heard of that "moniker". So there is no problem, and I'm not frustrated, and also you should refrain from speculating about my personality.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the figure €10,000 I found somewhere in the internet, can't exactly remember where, but if I found it, anybody can.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the press-release-tag on the Wall-Street-Journal-page. Here's more Ambassador of Peace: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ http://www.visiontv.ca/2014/06/24/words-peace-prem-rawat-speak-toronto/ --Rainer P. (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could have something in this vein:

In the 21st century Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

Rainer P., Surdas, Sylviecyn, would it be possible to find at least 2 or 3 examples for these refs, and present them in this format:

• Name of Author. "Article Title" (or) Book Title. Publisher. Date.

(with possibly hyperlinks as avalable)? Note that refs without name of the publisher have no value while it is essential to distinguish the references that fall under WP:SELFPUB policy and those that don't. Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed, the Bernama-report is no more freely accessible. As it was the best source for the WAF-statement, the whole issue is moot anyway, unless a better source turns up.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

27.124.20.120 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WAF

I propose to add this paragraph at the bottom of "1983-Present":

Prem Rawat is the first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF) Organisation, which was founded in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. This organisation recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. The 2014 award went to a project team from Zimbabwe for restoring desert lands to agriculture. At the presentation, which was made in Westminster Central Hall, London by HRH Princess Basma bint Ali of Jordan, Prem Rawat gave the keynote address. (source: www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435)

Improvements/objections/contributions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't find Rawat's name on the www.wafaward.org website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.wafaward.org/#!Prem-Rawat-and-Ayrton-Cable/zoom/mainPage/image1yww --Rainer P. (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(added a space to make the link actually work). "Patron" is confirmed by the website. He's apparently not an ambassador of the organisation though (that he would first patron not confirmed by the site). As for the ambassadors:

• Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal: WAF not mentioned in his biography.
• Princess Zama-Zulu of South Africa, apparently no Wikipedia biography.

Speech at 2014 award ceremony confirmed by the press release pdf downoadable from http://www.wafaward.org/#!presswafawardorg/c1x7a That Rawat would have been the keynote speaker not confirmed, much more attention to other speakers in that press release.

Facts can be summarized as follows: Rawat patron of WAF award, speaks at its 2014 ceremony.

Noteworthy or factoid?

Anyway, Rawat's biographical article is not the place to explain (1) what WAF is; (2) what it does; (3) who won its prizes and why; (4) other attendees of its events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

could it be that WAF was founded by premies? Not that they wouldn't be worthy to do that, but i wouldn't call that independent and it should be mentioned as well if is true. Surdas (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, First Patron is said in the Bernama article. I don't see how we have to reappraise the veracity of well established news agencies. As for noteworthyness - if I were a reader interested in information about Rawat, I would of course want to know what he is up to these days - when the article really goes to lengths explaining what he did more than 40 years ago, which might be completely irrelevant for a majority of readers - like e.g. that "smuggeling"-allegation, which has admittedly proved insubstantial, but occupies 140 words in the articel. Noteworthy in a bio? That's why the WAF event, which has obviously actually happened and can be referenced, is briefly and exemplary explained. And, Surdas, do you have any clue that WAF is a Premie-organisation? Please let us know. Summing up these objections, I don't see enough reason not to add the sentences to the article. Maybe we could have some more opinions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(disclosure:) I have no interest in Rawat (vested or otherwise).

Re. "what he is up to these days": no, Wikipedia:NOT#BILLBOARD. There's a link to his website at the bottom of the article, that's where an interested reader would go for learning what he is up to these days. If such events as the WAF award ceremony aren't related there, Wikipedia should not fill in the billboard function for the subject of this biography.

The information on Rawat in the BERNAMA article on WAF is a single sentence, which can badly be compared with the dozens of articles on the 1972 Hans Jayanti, including the articles on the incident with the impounded valuables, which led to a 10-line paragraph (in my browser) in his biography, a paragraph that further is also not exclusively devoted to that incident.

It is simply not possible to blow one and a half line on Rawat from a news agency into a five line paragraph in Wikipedia.

In comparison to the latest addition to the 1983—present section (speaking to 200,000 young persons in India) I think the WAF info of lesser notability.

In sum, no, I can't support this addition to the article. Unless the breadth of Rawat's patronage can be verified in reliable sources and that breadth is very substantial as Surdas seems to suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lwlt9xFydA and if you still have doubts that this is another PR-Machine we can investigate further Surdas (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace One Day is independent from Rawat, but there seem to be touching points. Last year there was a conversation between founder Jeremy Gilley and Rawat. I guess it is Rawat's policy now to make connections for collaboration with other peace initiatives, I have no doubt about that. Maybe Premies found or work for other initiatives as well, I don't know, I hope they do. It will take a lot of effort to bring some peace into this world. But you cannot simply put off any organisation as dependent, when they work with Premies. Maybe there are some Catholics, too, obliged to the Pope...shouldn't that be mentioned?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) BTW there was nothing clandestine about the meeting of Rawat and Gilley. In fact it was recorded and broadcasted, sure you can find it on Google. Watching it, you can easily tell that there is no dependence between the two. And Peace One Day has nothing to do with WAF, as far as I can see.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole video transports rawat's message. Every person starts with peace is.......where the tone should be about food and water in the first place as the title of WAF suggests. But i don't want to play cat and mouse. Yes, the planet needs peace, but i hardly doubt that there will be any success, if you try to trick rawat into any reputation he doesn't deserve. Unfortunately honesty is not interchangeable with devotion, as life has tought me in contrary to what rawat once told me.Surdas (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Surdas, I guess we all are sufficiently familiar with your negative attitude towards the subject, and there is no necessity to have it seep through all your leaks in every contribution. Try to be factual, else I will complain about you. Just to address your recent slips in this thread: What you call the 'PR-Machine' is not a machine, but consists of free, independent and good-willed human beings, who have found an effective way of contributing to a noble cause, no need to denigrate them. It is also not up to WP to define what Rawat deserves. And there is no ground for imputing dishonesty to sincere people, only because you refuse to accept and rather distort their motivation. If you are unable to control this disposition, I'm sure you can easily another forum for it, where it is certainly welcome.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations of primary sources (like what can be found on YouTube) are of no consequence for Wikipedia (unless these interpretations can be found in reliable secondary sources). See WP:PRIMARY for the policy on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?

I suggest for a compromise we boil the paragraph down to something like Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/. I cannot see how anybody would think WP is being used as a billboard.

BTW, as he is increasingly referred to as Ambassador of Peace, like in the Bernama-article, I suggest we add that to the summary, like complementing the sentence "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." It says so further up in this WP-article, and e.g. in the Huffington Post, and of course in Bernama, and many more articles internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?" What I said about interpretation of primary sources was addressed at Surdas. I think Sudas understood what I meant [4] Slightly worried Rainer P apparently doesn't. I recommend a reading of WP:PRIMARY for Rainer P too. If not sufficient: WP:V, WP:RS are recommended reading too.

Re. "Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/." — Could live with that, if this gets enough support from other editors. Personally I still think this of lesser importance than the 200,000 youngsters in Delhi in February, so I'd leave it up to other editors to weigh relative importance.

Re. "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." — Could live with that apart from:

• avoid the word "recent" - replace by "as of ..." or "since ..." with a time indication that fits (go look in secondary sources to find a good indication of the time when this started) (PS: as background information: "recent" has the same problems as "currently", see this discussion taking place at WP:VPP: WP:VPP#Dating articles, use of the word "currently" without a date provided)
• provide direct references for this part of the sentence in the lede too.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if Rawat is the "first patron of an award?" What does "First Patron of Award" even mean and why is it notable? Plus the website for this so-called NGO is called WAFaward.org, not waf.org (which is a website called "We Are Family" that's for for LGTB people in California), nor is this wafAward.org about waterandfood.org, which is another thing altogether. Additionally, I'm solidly against any changes in the lede without strong secondary sources. Why is there only a Malaysian press release about yet nothing is available from news sources in London or the U.S.? Once again, it's not the fault of Wikipedia and its editing standards, if Prem Rawat doesn't rely on mainstream press for his publicity. Making it up doesn't count. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess, the patron of an award is something like a sponsor. The award consits of €10,000, which is a lot for an NGO, and an invaluable increment of recognition. I'm sure there are people who do care.

The website-address is www.wafaward.org/

Within less than five minutes of googling I hit more than a handful of relevant sites that support Rawat being dubbed Ambassador of Peace. (You might notice one of them is Wall Street Journal - but then perhaps Rawat is behind some curtain there, too...)

www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-275086386.html

http://keshabjoshi.com.np/?p=79

www.examiner.com/article/ambassador-of-peace-named-by-president-of-the-basilicata-province-of-italy

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/12/01/European_Parliament_Welcomes_Back_Ambassador_of_Peace_Prem_R_c/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-905478.html#

www.marketwatch.com/story/gang-members-in-ecuador-embrace-peace-education-2013-06-06: --Rainer P. (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., an NGO is a vague description of non-profit organizations. All it means is that a non-profit org is not affiliated with any governments. There's nothing about 10,000 Euros paid for the "First Patron" title. Where did you get that figure? All of the links you posted above are press releases. It says so on each page! They are not legitimate articles written by legitimate, objective journalists, who have no interest in promoting Prem Rawat. For purposes of this article, press releases are considered self-promotion and are not secondary sources. Btw, I got the dig from you "behind some curtain," which you read in a post of mine on the ex-premie forum. It's not necessary to be sarcastic to me because you are expressing your frustration over your inability to provide any reliable secondary sources to justify your proposed edits to this article. The "Ambassador of Peace" moniker is yet another label that Maharaji has placed upon himself and now premies want to advertise him as such. Maybe if Rawat had kept to one name and one title in his lifetime career as a Satguru, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji, Balyogeshwar, Guru, etc., etc., and didn't have so many a/k/a's over the years, he wouldn't have so much trouble getting recognition. I'll fight this because these are self-promoting articles/titles and definitely don't justify any edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for putting it down so clearly. What i really miss in all that, is honesty and dignity. To promote such nonsense, the twisting and writhing, a premie has to undergo if he follows the party line, i am really sorry for them. maybe they don't have any sense for that anymore. Surdas (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go again... Sylviecyn, I have not checked all the links, but e.g. in this one, they explicitely call it an article. Also the Bernama-article, with which we started this thread, is an article, signed by a journalist. You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it. Even primary sources could do that, but there are secondary sources, and even you seem to have heard of that "moniker". So there is no problem, and I'm not frustrated, and also you should refrain from speculating about my personality.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the figure €10,000 I found somewhere in the internet, can't exactly remember where, but if I found it, anybody can.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the press-release-tag on the Wall-Street-Journal-page. Here's more Ambassador of Peace: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ http://www.visiontv.ca/2014/06/24/words-peace-prem-rawat-speak-toronto/ --Rainer P. (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could have something in this vein:

In the 21st century Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

Rainer P., Surdas, Sylviecyn, would it be possible to find at least 2 or 3 examples for these refs, and present them in this format:

• Name of Author. "Article Title" (or) Book Title. Publisher. Date.

(with possibly hyperlinks as avalable)? Note that refs without name of the publisher have no value while it is essential to distinguish the references that fall under WP:SELFPUB policy and those that don't. Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed, the Bernama-report is no more freely accessible. As it was the best source for the WAF-statement, the whole issue is moot anyway, unless a better source turns up.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

27.124.20.120 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WAF

I propose to add this paragraph at the bottom of "1983-Present":

Prem Rawat is the first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF) Organisation, which was founded in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. This organisation recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. The 2014 award went to a project team from Zimbabwe for restoring desert lands to agriculture. At the presentation, which was made in Westminster Central Hall, London by HRH Princess Basma bint Ali of Jordan, Prem Rawat gave the keynote address. (source: www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435)

Improvements/objections/contributions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't find Rawat's name on the www.wafaward.org website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.wafaward.org/#!Prem-Rawat-and-Ayrton-Cable/zoom/mainPage/image1yww --Rainer P. (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(added a space to make the link actually work). "Patron" is confirmed by the website. He's apparently not an ambassador of the organisation though (that he would first patron not confirmed by the site). As for the ambassadors:

• Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal: WAF not mentioned in his biography.
• Princess Zama-Zulu of South Africa, apparently no Wikipedia biography.

Speech at 2014 award ceremony confirmed by the press release pdf downoadable from http://www.wafaward.org/#!presswafawardorg/c1x7a That Rawat would have been the keynote speaker not confirmed, much more attention to other speakers in that press release.

Facts can be summarized as follows: Rawat patron of WAF award, speaks at its 2014 ceremony.

Noteworthy or factoid?

Anyway, Rawat's biographical article is not the place to explain (1) what WAF is; (2) what it does; (3) who won its prizes and why; (4) other attendees of its events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

could it be that WAF was founded by premies? Not that they wouldn't be worthy to do that, but i wouldn't call that independent and it should be mentioned as well if is true. Surdas (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, First Patron is said in the Bernama article. I don't see how we have to reappraise the veracity of well established news agencies. As for noteworthyness - if I were a reader interested in information about Rawat, I would of course want to know what he is up to these days - when the article really goes to lengths explaining what he did more than 40 years ago, which might be completely irrelevant for a majority of readers - like e.g. that "smuggeling"-allegation, which has admittedly proved insubstantial, but occupies 140 words in the articel. Noteworthy in a bio? That's why the WAF event, which has obviously actually happened and can be referenced, is briefly and exemplary explained. And, Surdas, do you have any clue that WAF is a Premie-organisation? Please let us know. Summing up these objections, I don't see enough reason not to add the sentences to the article. Maybe we could have some more opinions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(disclosure:) I have no interest in Rawat (vested or otherwise).

Re. "what he is up to these days": no, Wikipedia:NOT#BILLBOARD. There's a link to his website at the bottom of the article, that's where an interested reader would go for learning what he is up to these days. If such events as the WAF award ceremony aren't related there, Wikipedia should not fill in the billboard function for the subject of this biography.

The information on Rawat in the BERNAMA article on WAF is a single sentence, which can badly be compared with the dozens of articles on the 1972 Hans Jayanti, including the articles on the incident with the impounded valuables, which led to a 10-line paragraph (in my browser) in his biography, a paragraph that further is also not exclusively devoted to that incident.

It is simply not possible to blow one and a half line on Rawat from a news agency into a five line paragraph in Wikipedia.

In comparison to the latest addition to the 1983—present section (speaking to 200,000 young persons in India) I think the WAF info of lesser notability.

In sum, no, I can't support this addition to the article. Unless the breadth of Rawat's patronage can be verified in reliable sources and that breadth is very substantial as Surdas seems to suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lwlt9xFydA and if you still have doubts that this is another PR-Machine we can investigate further Surdas (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace One Day is independent from Rawat, but there seem to be touching points. Last year there was a conversation between founder Jeremy Gilley and Rawat. I guess it is Rawat's policy now to make connections for collaboration with other peace initiatives, I have no doubt about that. Maybe Premies found or work for other initiatives as well, I don't know, I hope they do. It will take a lot of effort to bring some peace into this world. But you cannot simply put off any organisation as dependent, when they work with Premies. Maybe there are some Catholics, too, obliged to the Pope...shouldn't that be mentioned?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) BTW there was nothing clandestine about the meeting of Rawat and Gilley. In fact it was recorded and broadcasted, sure you can find it on Google. Watching it, you can easily tell that there is no dependence between the two. And Peace One Day has nothing to do with WAF, as far as I can see.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole video transports rawat's message. Every person starts with peace is.......where the tone should be about food and water in the first place as the title of WAF suggests. But i don't want to play cat and mouse. Yes, the planet needs peace, but i hardly doubt that there will be any success, if you try to trick rawat into any reputation he doesn't deserve. Unfortunately honesty is not interchangeable with devotion, as life has tought me in contrary to what rawat once told me.Surdas (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Surdas, I guess we all are sufficiently familiar with your negative attitude towards the subject, and there is no necessity to have it seep through all your leaks in every contribution. Try to be factual, else I will complain about you. Just to address your recent slips in this thread: What you call the 'PR-Machine' is not a machine, but consists of free, independent and good-willed human beings, who have found an effective way of contributing to a noble cause, no need to denigrate them. It is also not up to WP to define what Rawat deserves. And there is no ground for imputing dishonesty to sincere people, only because you refuse to accept and rather distort their motivation. If you are unable to control this disposition, I'm sure you can easily another forum for it, where it is certainly welcome.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations of primary sources (like what can be found on YouTube) are of no consequence for Wikipedia (unless these interpretations can be found in reliable secondary sources). See WP:PRIMARY for the policy on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?

I suggest for a compromise we boil the paragraph down to something like Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/. I cannot see how anybody would think WP is being used as a billboard.

BTW, as he is increasingly referred to as Ambassador of Peace, like in the Bernama-article, I suggest we add that to the summary, like complementing the sentence "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." It says so further up in this WP-article, and e.g. in the Huffington Post, and of course in Bernama, and many more articles internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?" What I said about interpretation of primary sources was addressed at Surdas. I think Sudas understood what I meant [5] Slightly worried Rainer P apparently doesn't. I recommend a reading of WP:PRIMARY for Rainer P too. If not sufficient: WP:V, WP:RS are recommended reading too.

Re. "Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/." — Could live with that, if this gets enough support from other editors. Personally I still think this of lesser importance than the 200,000 youngsters in Delhi in February, so I'd leave it up to other editors to weigh relative importance.

Re. "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." — Could live with that apart from:

• avoid the word "recent" - replace by "as of ..." or "since ..." with a time indication that fits (go look in secondary sources to find a good indication of the time when this started) (PS: as background information: "recent" has the same problems as "currently", see this discussion taking place at WP:VPP: WP:VPP#Dating articles, use of the word "currently" without a date provided)
• provide direct references for this part of the sentence in the lede too.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if Rawat is the "first patron of an award?" What does "First Patron of Award" even mean and why is it notable? Plus the website for this so-called NGO is called WAFaward.org, not waf.org (which is a website called "We Are Family" that's for for LGTB people in California), nor is this wafAward.org about waterandfood.org, which is another thing altogether. Additionally, I'm solidly against any changes in the lede without strong secondary sources. Why is there only a Malaysian press release about yet nothing is available from news sources in London or the U.S.? Once again, it's not the fault of Wikipedia and its editing standards, if Prem Rawat doesn't rely on mainstream press for his publicity. Making it up doesn't count. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess, the patron of an award is something like a sponsor. The award consits of €10,000, which is a lot for an NGO, and an invaluable increment of recognition. I'm sure there are people who do care.

The website-address is www.wafaward.org/

Within less than five minutes of googling I hit more than a handful of relevant sites that support Rawat being dubbed Ambassador of Peace. (You might notice one of them is Wall Street Journal - but then perhaps Rawat is behind some curtain there, too...)

www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-275086386.html

http://keshabjoshi.com.np/?p=79

www.examiner.com/article/ambassador-of-peace-named-by-president-of-the-basilicata-province-of-italy

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/12/01/European_Parliament_Welcomes_Back_Ambassador_of_Peace_Prem_R_c/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-905478.html#

www.marketwatch.com/story/gang-members-in-ecuador-embrace-peace-education-2013-06-06: --Rainer P. (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., an NGO is a vague description of non-profit organizations. All it means is that a non-profit org is not affiliated with any governments. There's nothing about 10,000 Euros paid for the "First Patron" title. Where did you get that figure? All of the links you posted above are press releases. It says so on each page! They are not legitimate articles written by legitimate, objective journalists, who have no interest in promoting Prem Rawat. For purposes of this article, press releases are considered self-promotion and are not secondary sources. Btw, I got the dig from you "behind some curtain," which you read in a post of mine on the ex-premie forum. It's not necessary to be sarcastic to me because you are expressing your frustration over your inability to provide any reliable secondary sources to justify your proposed edits to this article. The "Ambassador of Peace" moniker is yet another label that Maharaji has placed upon himself and now premies want to advertise him as such. Maybe if Rawat had kept to one name and one title in his lifetime career as a Satguru, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji, Balyogeshwar, Guru, etc., etc., and didn't have so many a/k/a's over the years, he wouldn't have so much trouble getting recognition. I'll fight this because these are self-promoting articles/titles and definitely don't justify any edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for putting it down so clearly. What i really miss in all that, is honesty and dignity. To promote such nonsense, the twisting and writhing, a premie has to undergo if he follows the party line, i am really sorry for them. maybe they don't have any sense for that anymore. Surdas (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go again... Sylviecyn, I have not checked all the links, but e.g. in this one, they explicitely call it an article. Also the Bernama-article, with which we started this thread, is an article, signed by a journalist. You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it. Even primary sources could do that, but there are secondary sources, and even you seem to have heard of that "moniker". So there is no problem, and I'm not frustrated, and also you should refrain from speculating about my personality.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the figure €10,000 I found somewhere in the internet, can't exactly remember where, but if I found it, anybody can.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the press-release-tag on the Wall-Street-Journal-page. Here's more Ambassador of Peace: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ http://www.visiontv.ca/2014/06/24/words-peace-prem-rawat-speak-toronto/ --Rainer P. (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could have something in this vein:

In the 21st century Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

Rainer P., Surdas, Sylviecyn, would it be possible to find at least 2 or 3 examples for these refs, and present them in this format:

• Name of Author. "Article Title" (or) Book Title. Publisher. Date.

(with possibly hyperlinks as avalable)? Note that refs without name of the publisher have no value while it is essential to distinguish the references that fall under WP:SELFPUB policy and those that don't. Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed, the Bernama-report is no more freely accessible. As it was the best source for the WAF-statement, the whole issue is moot anyway, unless a better source turns up.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

27.124.20.120 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WAF

I propose to add this paragraph at the bottom of "1983-Present":

Prem Rawat is the first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF) Organisation, which was founded in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. This organisation recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. The 2014 award went to a project team from Zimbabwe for restoring desert lands to agriculture. At the presentation, which was made in Westminster Central Hall, London by HRH Princess Basma bint Ali of Jordan, Prem Rawat gave the keynote address. (source: www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435)

Improvements/objections/contributions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't find Rawat's name on the www.wafaward.org website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.wafaward.org/#!Prem-Rawat-and-Ayrton-Cable/zoom/mainPage/image1yww --Rainer P. (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(added a space to make the link actually work). "Patron" is confirmed by the website. He's apparently not an ambassador of the organisation though (that he would first patron not confirmed by the site). As for the ambassadors:

• Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal: WAF not mentioned in his biography.
• Princess Zama-Zulu of South Africa, apparently no Wikipedia biography.

Speech at 2014 award ceremony confirmed by the press release pdf downoadable from http://www.wafaward.org/#!presswafawardorg/c1x7a That Rawat would have been the keynote speaker not confirmed, much more attention to other speakers in that press release.

Facts can be summarized as follows: Rawat patron of WAF award, speaks at its 2014 ceremony.

Noteworthy or factoid?

Anyway, Rawat's biographical article is not the place to explain (1) what WAF is; (2) what it does; (3) who won its prizes and why; (4) other attendees of its events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

could it be that WAF was founded by premies? Not that they wouldn't be worthy to do that, but i wouldn't call that independent and it should be mentioned as well if is true. Surdas (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, First Patron is said in the Bernama article. I don't see how we have to reappraise the veracity of well established news agencies. As for noteworthyness - if I were a reader interested in information about Rawat, I would of course want to know what he is up to these days - when the article really goes to lengths explaining what he did more than 40 years ago, which might be completely irrelevant for a majority of readers - like e.g. that "smuggeling"-allegation, which has admittedly proved insubstantial, but occupies 140 words in the articel. Noteworthy in a bio? That's why the WAF event, which has obviously actually happened and can be referenced, is briefly and exemplary explained. And, Surdas, do you have any clue that WAF is a Premie-organisation? Please let us know. Summing up these objections, I don't see enough reason not to add the sentences to the article. Maybe we could have some more opinions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(disclosure:) I have no interest in Rawat (vested or otherwise).

Re. "what he is up to these days": no, Wikipedia:NOT#BILLBOARD. There's a link to his website at the bottom of the article, that's where an interested reader would go for learning what he is up to these days. If such events as the WAF award ceremony aren't related there, Wikipedia should not fill in the billboard function for the subject of this biography.

The information on Rawat in the BERNAMA article on WAF is a single sentence, which can badly be compared with the dozens of articles on the 1972 Hans Jayanti, including the articles on the incident with the impounded valuables, which led to a 10-line paragraph (in my browser) in his biography, a paragraph that further is also not exclusively devoted to that incident.

It is simply not possible to blow one and a half line on Rawat from a news agency into a five line paragraph in Wikipedia.

In comparison to the latest addition to the 1983—present section (speaking to 200,000 young persons in India) I think the WAF info of lesser notability.

In sum, no, I can't support this addition to the article. Unless the breadth of Rawat's patronage can be verified in reliable sources and that breadth is very substantial as Surdas seems to suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lwlt9xFydA and if you still have doubts that this is another PR-Machine we can investigate further Surdas (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace One Day is independent from Rawat, but there seem to be touching points. Last year there was a conversation between founder Jeremy Gilley and Rawat. I guess it is Rawat's policy now to make connections for collaboration with other peace initiatives, I have no doubt about that. Maybe Premies found or work for other initiatives as well, I don't know, I hope they do. It will take a lot of effort to bring some peace into this world. But you cannot simply put off any organisation as dependent, when they work with Premies. Maybe there are some Catholics, too, obliged to the Pope...shouldn't that be mentioned?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) BTW there was nothing clandestine about the meeting of Rawat and Gilley. In fact it was recorded and broadcasted, sure you can find it on Google. Watching it, you can easily tell that there is no dependence between the two. And Peace One Day has nothing to do with WAF, as far as I can see.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole video transports rawat's message. Every person starts with peace is.......where the tone should be about food and water in the first place as the title of WAF suggests. But i don't want to play cat and mouse. Yes, the planet needs peace, but i hardly doubt that there will be any success, if you try to trick rawat into any reputation he doesn't deserve. Unfortunately honesty is not interchangeable with devotion, as life has tought me in contrary to what rawat once told me.Surdas (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Surdas, I guess we all are sufficiently familiar with your negative attitude towards the subject, and there is no necessity to have it seep through all your leaks in every contribution. Try to be factual, else I will complain about you. Just to address your recent slips in this thread: What you call the 'PR-Machine' is not a machine, but consists of free, independent and good-willed human beings, who have found an effective way of contributing to a noble cause, no need to denigrate them. It is also not up to WP to define what Rawat deserves. And there is no ground for imputing dishonesty to sincere people, only because you refuse to accept and rather distort their motivation. If you are unable to control this disposition, I'm sure you can easily another forum for it, where it is certainly welcome.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations of primary sources (like what can be found on YouTube) are of no consequence for Wikipedia (unless these interpretations can be found in reliable secondary sources). See WP:PRIMARY for the policy on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?

I suggest for a compromise we boil the paragraph down to something like Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/. I cannot see how anybody would think WP is being used as a billboard.

BTW, as he is increasingly referred to as Ambassador of Peace, like in the Bernama-article, I suggest we add that to the summary, like complementing the sentence "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." It says so further up in this WP-article, and e.g. in the Huffington Post, and of course in Bernama, and many more articles internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I'm not sure what you mean, Francis. Who interprets primary sources?" What I said about interpretation of primary sources was addressed at Surdas. I think Sudas understood what I meant [6] Slightly worried Rainer P apparently doesn't. I recommend a reading of WP:PRIMARY for Rainer P too. If not sufficient: WP:V, WP:RS are recommended reading too.

Re. "Being first Patron of the 'Water and Food Humanitarian Award' (WAF), Prem Rawat delivered the keynote address for their 2014 award ceremony in London, source it with the Bernama-article and provide a footnote to the WAF website http://www.wafaward.org/." — Could live with that, if this gets enough support from other editors. Personally I still think this of lesser importance than the 200,000 youngsters in Delhi in February, so I'd leave it up to other editors to weigh relative importance.

Re. "Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings,[4][5], as well as Ambassador of Peace, mainly in recent years." — Could live with that apart from:

• avoid the word "recent" - replace by "as of ..." or "since ..." with a time indication that fits (go look in secondary sources to find a good indication of the time when this started) (PS: as background information: "recent" has the same problems as "currently", see this discussion taking place at WP:VPP: WP:VPP#Dating articles, use of the word "currently" without a date provided)
• provide direct references for this part of the sentence in the lede too.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if Rawat is the "first patron of an award?" What does "First Patron of Award" even mean and why is it notable? Plus the website for this so-called NGO is called WAFaward.org, not waf.org (which is a website called "We Are Family" that's for for LGTB people in California), nor is this wafAward.org about waterandfood.org, which is another thing altogether. Additionally, I'm solidly against any changes in the lede without strong secondary sources. Why is there only a Malaysian press release about yet nothing is available from news sources in London or the U.S.? Once again, it's not the fault of Wikipedia and its editing standards, if Prem Rawat doesn't rely on mainstream press for his publicity. Making it up doesn't count. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess, the patron of an award is something like a sponsor. The award consits of €10,000, which is a lot for an NGO, and an invaluable increment of recognition. I'm sure there are people who do care.

The website-address is www.wafaward.org/

Within less than five minutes of googling I hit more than a handful of relevant sites that support Rawat being dubbed Ambassador of Peace. (You might notice one of them is Wall Street Journal - but then perhaps Rawat is behind some curtain there, too...)

www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-275086386.html

http://keshabjoshi.com.np/?p=79

www.examiner.com/article/ambassador-of-peace-named-by-president-of-the-basilicata-province-of-italy

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/12/01/European_Parliament_Welcomes_Back_Ambassador_of_Peace_Prem_R_c/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-905478.html#

www.marketwatch.com/story/gang-members-in-ecuador-embrace-peace-education-2013-06-06: --Rainer P. (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., an NGO is a vague description of non-profit organizations. All it means is that a non-profit org is not affiliated with any governments. There's nothing about 10,000 Euros paid for the "First Patron" title. Where did you get that figure? All of the links you posted above are press releases. It says so on each page! They are not legitimate articles written by legitimate, objective journalists, who have no interest in promoting Prem Rawat. For purposes of this article, press releases are considered self-promotion and are not secondary sources. Btw, I got the dig from you "behind some curtain," which you read in a post of mine on the ex-premie forum. It's not necessary to be sarcastic to me because you are expressing your frustration over your inability to provide any reliable secondary sources to justify your proposed edits to this article. The "Ambassador of Peace" moniker is yet another label that Maharaji has placed upon himself and now premies want to advertise him as such. Maybe if Rawat had kept to one name and one title in his lifetime career as a Satguru, Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji, Balyogeshwar, Guru, etc., etc., and didn't have so many a/k/a's over the years, he wouldn't have so much trouble getting recognition. I'll fight this because these are self-promoting articles/titles and definitely don't justify any edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for putting it down so clearly. What i really miss in all that, is honesty and dignity. To promote such nonsense, the twisting and writhing, a premie has to undergo if he follows the party line, i am really sorry for them. maybe they don't have any sense for that anymore. Surdas (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go again... Sylviecyn, I have not checked all the links, but e.g. in this one, they explicitely call it an article. Also the Bernama-article, with which we started this thread, is an article, signed by a journalist. You see, this is not to prove Rawat IS an Ambassador of Peace, but that he has been CALLED one, just like cult-leader and so on, and it would further the NPOV to add it. Even primary sources could do that, but there are secondary sources, and even you seem to have heard of that "moniker". So there is no problem, and I'm not frustrated, and also you should refrain from speculating about my personality.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the figure €10,000 I found somewhere in the internet, can't exactly remember where, but if I found it, anybody can.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the press-release-tag on the Wall-Street-Journal-page. Here's more Ambassador of Peace: http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ http://www.visiontv.ca/2014/06/24/words-peace-prem-rawat-speak-toronto/ --Rainer P. (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could have something in this vein:

In the 21st century Ambassador of Peace was promoted as a qualifier for Rawat.[refs]

Rainer P., Surdas, Sylviecyn, would it be possible to find at least 2 or 3 examples for these refs, and present them in this format:

• Name of Author. "Article Title" (or) Book Title. Publisher. Date.

(with possibly hyperlinks as avalable)? Note that refs without name of the publisher have no value while it is essential to distinguish the references that fall under WP:SELFPUB policy and those that don't. Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed, the Bernama-report is no more freely accessible. As it was the best source for the WAF-statement, the whole issue is moot anyway, unless a better source turns up.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal vs. Official

I have tried to change the labeling "Official Website" in External Links to "Personal website" (because that's what it is), but it seems to be more complicated, as templates are involved. Anybody help?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no template named Persoanl Website. Take away the curled braces and look at the link below. Surdas (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I made adjustments.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

New source

There is a new independent source that could be evaluated for the WAF-Event, the Pledge-to-Peace-event in London, and the Ambassador of Peace issue. http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9

BTW, what has become of the lede-too-long-project, just when it began to make sense? I am afraid, without Francis we wont get very far.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

issuu.com is a self-publishing website. Surdas (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was obviously written by Rani Singh, a house journalist for Asian Voice. "'Asian voice' is Britain's oldest and leading ethnic newsweekly reaching over 200,000 British Asians in UK for the last 40 years. Asian Voice is a premier newsweekly for the British Asians – one of the UK’s most progressive and enterprising ethnic group. The combination of a highly influential national newspaper, together with a portfolio of regular special issues covering key topics such as Health, Property, Finance, Banking, Insurance, Education, Diwali, Travel & Tourism, gives us the leading edge within the UK’s ethnic press." (from their editorial info, https://www.facebook.com/AsianVoiceNewsweekly) Do you have differing information?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P. is correct. Rani Singh is a legitimate journalist who works both for the BBC, Forbes India, and is a contributor for Asian Voice newspaper. This is her profile on LinkedIn. The section Rainer P. has linked to above, that includes the blurb about Rawat, is part of her column "Leading Lights." Sylviecyn (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

i don' mind if she is reliable. I only wonder why this is referenced by issuu.com. We have a lot of sources on ex-premie.org that are reliable too, but won't be usable because of self publishing. Surdas (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should dismiss sources like e.g. Time Magazine or National Geographic as "self-published", only because they are accessible on issuu.com. The actual reason why I hesitate to use 'Asian Voice' as RS is the uncertainty whether it is still freely accessible after a while, like experience with the Bernama source shows. I suggest we wait a few weeks, to see if it's stable.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The ISSUU-source seems to be stable. I suggest an addition like this: "Prem Rawat attended 2 events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration to the UK Parliament, whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011. Also Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) in Westminster Hall, London. Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pledge to Peace / WAF

I suggest to make this addition at the foot of the 1983-Present section:

"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament, whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 . Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) . Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment.“--Rainer P. (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Reasons have been given before. This is again one of these {{round in circles}} things warming up for the next spin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't just say no. The discussion we had before was not finished, I have some other sources, and we can negotiate. Sylviecyn has signalled cooperation.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "just no". I said: "No. Reasons have been given before. This is again one of these {{round in circles}} things warming up for the next spin."

If you want to continue an active discussion, don't start a new section, that causes disruption (and ultimately makes the archiving messy). Put your comments in the active section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, please feel free to move this thread to a more appropriate place, and we will continue there.Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

moved --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

References

A week has gone by, and there has been no objection or alternative suggestion. So I will make the edit at the foot of the 1983-Present section.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(repeat) I said: "No. Reasons have been given before..." seems like an objection to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sources, or the general noteworthiness of the matter in this article, that finds space for mentioning stuff like Rawat played with squirt-guns as a child?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I refer to what has been said before. Not my task to recycle it from the archive. If you want to address the issues raised before, point to them (you know how wikilinks work I suppose), write your new (preferably not recycled) contribution to the debate, and see whether that can lead to a new consensus. Otherwise merely recycling will probably keep the consensus (or lack thereof) as it was archived. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'merely recycling' my proposal. I have changed both the proposed edit and the sources. In the above somewhat messy discussion I already can't really find a valid argument against my edit, and now paricularly as I have made those changes after the discussion I wish to discuss it anew. What are your objections exactly?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They are in the archive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not, and they can hardly be there, as my proposal is new, only your rejection is recycled.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss the point about the non-source related objections. As for the source: one source disappeared, another one came up. They were comparable. So even for the source-related objections there's not much new to be discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is a point, I may be missing it, so please kindly break it down for me. I am not playing games. I believe the article would improve with the edit, and simply rejecting it appears POV to me, when so much less relevant stuff is being displayed in it. If you feel we're going in circles, you can of course always summon an RFC, I will respect that.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the nth time I'm not "simply rejecting it", I'm rejecting it for reasons that have been given before (not only by me). Unless these reasons are acknowledged I don't think we'll be getting anywhere, least of all consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., :I don't think it's appropriate for you to list more programs Prem Rawat attended this year. You already have a sentence indicating a 2014 program, as well as a whole paragraph announcing his appointment as "Ambassador of Peace." Any more than that is promotional. I don't want to get into another circular argument here. I'm busy, and you've had plenty of objections that were laid out clearly on this page, as well as in archives. If you type "ambassador of peace" into the archive search box at the top portion of this talk page, you'll find the old conversations, which constitute non-consensus among editors. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is it promotional to report the Brussels Pledge to Peace and the presenting it before the UK Parliament? And Rawat's engagement for WAF? And a very short characterization of WAF, as probably most readers are not familiar with it? I don't mention any of the multiple events with Rawat as a speaker for his own students in 2014, as that would indeed be somewhat redundant (although the Asian Voice article mentions them). But these two London events had a broader appeal, were extraordinary and should be mentioned. Remember that the article devotes space to smuggeling, pieing, ulcers, Cadillacs, squirt-guns and the like.

Let me get to arguments against my (former) proposal:

-„Can't find Rawat's name on the www.wafaward.org (Francis)“ - see:http://www.wafaward.org/#!patrons/c1ckh

- „could it be that WAF was founded by premies? (Surdas)“ - No source for that, even if it mattered.

- „It is simply not possible to blow one and a half line on Rawat from a news agency into a five line paragraph in Wikipedia. (Francis)“ - 6 lines on WAF and two lines on the London presentation of the Pledge for Peace in the Asian Voice.

-  „Wikipedia should not fill in the billboard function for the subject of this biography (Francis).“ - The event has already happened and is documented in sources. Can hardly call it billboarding when it is mentioned here.

-„Why is there only a Malaysian press release about yet nothing is available from news sources in London or the U.S.? (Sylviecyn)“ - I have dumped the BERNAMA source for not being freely accessible any more. The Asian Voice appears in London and is free.

- „What i really miss in all that, is honesty and dignity. To promote such nonsense, the twisting and writhing, a premie has to undergo if he follows the party line, i am really sorry for them. maybe they don't have any sense for that anymore. (Surdas)“ – another uncivil, personal attack without any factual content.

- „issuu.com is a self-publishing website“ (Surdas) - Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online, like Time Magazine or National Geographic. You would not reject these as being „self-published“.

So what is left of those objections? And, let me add at this point, if the all-agree-convention results only in stalling any reasonable updating of this article, I will call it into question. It works only, when there is a respected neutral voice and a minimum of cooperation on all sides. I have patiently been submitting proposals and arguments for quite some time now, and the introduction has not changed, although there have been approaches, but no progress. Instead we had to waste our and other editors' time with that silly LOTU bit. And if we have to begin the Ambassador of Peace discussion all over again, I will seek arbitration, also concerning the all-agree-arrangement, that seems to evolve into a major obstacle for progress.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

it is still self publishing, create an account upload the magazine, done. See at http://upload-magazin.de/selfpublishing-guide/2010/08/19/plattformen-fuer-e-mags/ , it's in german to make sure you understand it. So whatever magazine i like to promote, i upload it to issuu.com and create a reliable source with it? Surdas (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., you have submitted proposals which reached concensus and were placed into the article, all related to "Ambassador of Peace." Going over and over the same argument isn't constructive. There's no consensus for your edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here we are discussing my proposal about the June 2014 London events, aren't we? Has nothing to do with the Ambassador of Peace issue. We'll get back to that. Please note that I submitted the issuu.com question to the RS Noticeboard, under 'ISSUU.com', at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'ld like to have their opinion.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ISSUU.com: current comments seem to confirm that content based on ISSUU is not deemed suitable for inclusion in the Prem Rawat article. Hope we can put this to rest now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

I've never seen an ethnic Hindu, let alone someone from North India, with such prominent epicanthic folds. Does Rawat have any non-Indic ancestry, or is that just how he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.77.181 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching this man for quite a while, but have not yet come across sources that deal with racial issues concerning Rawat.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say that in the 70s many searching for meaning projected their expectations onto the teacher? When one thinks of how people will follow ideas or figures in the media without question oftimes it is reasonable to say that it was not so much the teacher telling those who "follow" to make assumptions,more that it is the nature of humans to think of the teacher as a person who will"grant" wisdom when in reality anyone looking for awakening has to do the work without thinking another may enlighten them.Offer this in friendliness for the hopeful good.Thank You for reading.

Depends on what the teacher teaches. Nothing wrong with being lucky. Apart from that, I agree with you, not only concerning the 70s. BTW please be aware that these pages are exclusively dedicated to improving the article, not for discussing the subject. And please kindly sign your edits.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)