Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Ambassador of Peace, new source

Here's another independent source for the straight use of the term 'ambassador of peace', or rather: 'international ambassador for peace', in an Australian newspaper article, signed by the journalist. Again no trace of that old cult-innuendo. I think it's time to respond to this in the lede of our article and proceed with updating and shortening it. http://www.qt.com.au/news/peace-descends-on-ipswich/2385058/ --Rainer P. (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What does that title mean though? It seems like a meaningless combination of words, since it isn't attached to any sort of function or Organization, and 'peace' cannot designate ambassadors to represent it. This terminology is just as empty as the 'cult leader' appelations. Zambelo; talk 01:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it means what it says. The point is that there has been a significant change in the way public media describe Rawat, from a rather negative connotation to a predominantly positive one. On the background of his endeavour this is an important point.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC) I agree with you on the emptiness of the 'cult-leader' appelations. But then it is hard to explain why the c-word appears three times in the first paragraph of the introduction, while it seems to take an endless fight to include the 'ambassador of peace' - which is not really that empty, but probably understood world-wide.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Cult" isn't an empty term at all. It means something, and in this article it's well-sourced by scholars of new religious movements/cults, and applies to Prem Rawat based on their assessments of Rawat and will remain in the article. As for "Ambassador of Peace", the United Nations Messengers of Peace is a term used by the United Nations when bestows the honor upon "distinguished individuals, carefully selected from the fields of art, music, literature and sports, who have agreed to help focus worldwide attention on the work of the United Nations." See UN Messenger of Peace. For Rawat, "Ambassador of Peace" is a manufactured title that now seems to have replace Rawat's many other titles, including "perfect master," "guru," "Lord of the Universe," "satguru," etc. The article you source from is about a premie program at Amaroo, which is owned by the Ivory's Rock Conference Center, which also has a non-profit foundation called Ivory's Rock Foundation, which make up the many, many organizations that support and pay Rawat's way, including his opulent lifestyle (residences, the Gulfstream 650 private jet, etc.). Very important to note is that the title has NOT be awarded to Prem Rawat by the United Nations. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should be careful not to confuse that title with the UN-Messenger of Peace. When you google Ambassador of Peace, there seem to be a lot of them, all not connected to the UN, so I think it is not necessary to point this out explicitely in the article. Instead we could add a source about Pierre Weil from Unipaz bestowing the title upon Rawat, so that the origin is clear. I don't object basically to the use of the cult-word in the right context, it seems only a little frantic and over the top to have such an excessive use of it in the article's first few lines and then not balancing it with the later developments, a violation of NPOV. Do you agree with my proposed edit concerning the June 2014 London events?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I still feel like replacing the first sentence of the intro 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.

would be a good idea (see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace' for reasons, references etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

i agree, i think this more complete, go ahead so far i am concerned Surdas (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No way. It is obfuscating and misleading to indiscriminately list names (Prem Rawat (missing in your proposal), Prem Pal Singh Rawat), terms of endearment (Balyogeshwar; Maharaji), titles (Guru Maharaj Ji; Ambassador of Peace), funktions (Perfect Master), attributions (Lord of the Universe; inspirational speaker) from different times and different contexts. Makes him look like dubious impostor. It would take the reader considerable effort to disentangle that mess again, that is not the idea of a summary, but a mock.

Surdas, when you say you agree, do you mean the London-edit? (Sorry for getting threads mixed up.)--Rainer P. (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

i meant Francis suggestions. i don't share your sophisticated objections to this matter. sounds to me completely unbalanced. it may really matter for an insider only if the many names where functions, attributes or what the hell.Surdas (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not really addressing my objections.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

terms of endearment for example. that's your personal opinion. born king of yogis you may say is an honourly title bestowed on rawat because he was the son of a localy prominent guru, what kind of honour could he have had else, being six years old.Maharaji a simplification of maharaj ji to make it simpler for westerners. If you lovingly spell it maharaji that's your choice. Perfect Master may be only a function for someone's religious belief system, otherwise it doesn't exist, so we don't press people into belief systems at wikipedia, but it was a name used to promote him and this is the only thing that is important. and so on and so forth .....Surdas (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not say: Prem Rawat was in his life called all kinds of things by all kinds of people? It's short, not wrong, but not really informative. I suggest rather a statement that conveys a sense of developement, like: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American who lives in the USA since he was 13. In his childhood in India he was also called Sant Ji [source] or Balyogeshwar [source]. After his father's death, eight-year-old Rawat, became the new Satguru ('Perfect Master')[source] or Guru Maharaj Ji [source] at the center of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) [internal link] his father had founded. In the West he was in the beginning addressed 'Guru Maharaj Ji', later 'Maharaji', and in the 21st century mostly Prem Rawat. In media he was sometimes called 'Lord of the Universe' [source], cult-leader [source], inspirational speaker [source], and from 2006 on increasingly 'Ambassador of Peace' [source]. --Rainer P. (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Still, I feel the Wikipedia should not be a collection of names people have been called, but of facts. The lead was already more concise a while ago, before its nuclear winter had set on and it became susceptible to all that squabbling that has left its marks in it, making it long and awkward. For orientation, this was the last version of the collaborative effort before the strike: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Jiand Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge.[1] At the age of eight, Rawat succeeded his guru Hans Ji Maharaj, who was also his father, as Satguru (True Master) to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults, but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. By the end of 1973 Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) was active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated. When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married against his mother's wishes, which prompted her to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable, replacing Divine Light Mission with Elan Vital. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s, Rawat toured almost constantly. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts. His message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents. 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. It has not become better since. It could use a little dusting and updating, but this is basically what I think a summary should look like.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Francis's suggestion for the first sentence of the lede: 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. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't. One problem is the slight, but meaningful semantic difference between 'being called' and 'being referred to as...' He is predominantly and obviously called Prem Rawat (which is missing entirely in your proposal), his full name is Prem Pal Singh Rawat. In his childhood and youth he was called Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar (if you want that in a summary. I don't think it's necessary). After succeeding his father he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, later Maharaji (this is necessary. He was actually called that). He was referred to as (whatnot, all your favourites, keep a chronological order), and that might include being referred to as "charismatic, a prodigy, a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", but I don't think this really adds to a concise beginning sentence and we can dispense with that. Currently he is often publicly apostrophized as Ambassador of Peace, which is important, because it is going on for a while and he is a living person. I see no need to throw it all in into one confusing sentence, a lot of information would get lost. The summary as it stands is bloated for other reasons and can easily be shortened by weeding out marginal stuff.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. large parts of talk page contributions bolded: bad style, comparable to WP:ALLCAPS. Also, when we're talking about the intro of the article, doesn't make clear what would be bolded in article namespace, for instance I would never put "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." as opener for the article, but I would "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."

Re. "You are not really addressing my objections": I had explicitly referred to Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace', where in fact these objections were addressed. Please address the replies to these objections instead of going {{round in circles}} (see template above on this page).

Re. going back to the olden days when this article tried, even more than today, to "convey" something. No, for all sorts of reasons, among others: Wikipedia articles should be informative, they should however not try to convey a message or whatever. Every accumulation of facts is in and by itself "meaningless", unless for the one who reads it. I choose accumulation of facts, not trying to convey something. The only prerequisite for the accumulated facts is readability.

Re. "should not be a collection of names people have been called, but of facts" and "semantic difference between 'being called' and 'being referred to as...'":

• Neither 'being called' nor 'being referred to as...' is the wording of the proposal: the proposal writes "also known as...". Please reply to the facts. Don't read something different than what is written, and then give a reply to something that isn't the topic of the proposal.
• What a person is known as are the facts, how these facts are perceived ("Makes him look like ..." etc) is none of the concern of those providing the facts. Again we're not here to convey a message, nor an embellishing message, nor any other type of message.
• For comparison: article: Rajneesh, analysis of first sentence (all bolding as currently used in article):
  • starts with actual name: Chandra Mohan Jain
  • flag for start of list of what the person also was known as: "also known as ..."
  • alternative names and qualifiers in first sentence:
    • Acharya Rajneesh
    • Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
    • Osho
    • Indian mystic
    • guru
    • spiritual teacher

For the non-capitalized qualifiers in the first sentence proposal for Rawat's article: we can't write "is a" inspirational speaker, while that was limited to a certain period in the subject's life. So works fine as an "also known as". Same way as for "guru": for Rajneesh that works fine as "was a ... guru", while as for Rawat we can't do "is a ... guru", for the same reasons: limited to a period of his life, so the proposal is: "known as ... Guru .... --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador of peace wasn't a name given to him though, was it? It's more of an honorific title, like "Sir" for knighthoods. Unlike knighthoods, however - this isn't a real title. Zambelo; talk 07:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador of Peace was a name/title/qualification given to him, see prior discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace', where the reference is given, that is: "Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace." in US Newswire 26 october 2006, reference for: "Prem Rawat was declared 'Ambassador of Peace' by Pierre Weil, director of the 'University of Peace' in Florianopolis, Brazil." --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Francis, the bolding looks bad. Anyway, I don't see the compulsion to formulate such an overcharged sentence, when it is easy to formulate more differentiatetly. I don't want to 'convey' any messages, but then the style you use inevitably transports some subtext. Optimal precision can keep this problem at a minimum, that's what we're trying here. How about:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American currently internationally known as Prem Rawat. In his childhood and youth he was called Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar. After succeeding his father as leader of the Divine Light Mission he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, later Maharaji. He has been referred to as [da da da, we should work that out. All properly sourced]. From 2006 on he is often publicly apostrophized as Ambassador of Peace [lots of sources for that].“ No messages, just information in a meaningful array. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In the source given, he's called "international ambassador for peace"... not "International Ambassador for Peace" -- no caps, and you can't add caps since that changes a description to a title, which are two different things.

For my part I'm all for throwing in as many grandiose titles as you can dig up... Creator of the Universe or Lord Master of All Creation or whatever people have thought up, since I don't like him and the more you pile this stuff on the more ridiculous he looks. I wouldn't worry about it too much either way. Herostratus (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. "for": correct for the 2006 title, conferred by Pierre Weil (UNIPAZ), later: "of" for a similar title conferred by Basilicata Region of Italy (etc.)

Re. capitalization of "Peace", that's what Rawat made of it on his own website: "Ambassador for Peace ... 2006: Title first conferred by Pierre Weil, rector of the International University of Peace, UNIPAZ Florianopolis, Brazil"

per WP:SELFPUB I amend my proposal for replacement of the first sentence of the article 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 for Peace.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, he capitalized it on his own website, that's very different, why didn't you say so. Still, I we ought to be able to do better than this. Since we're valorizing someone who obviously has nothing interesting, worthwhile, or new to say, why not pull out all the stops. I mean here's a guy who is Lord of the Universe for crying out loud. Let's not damn with faint praise, here.

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 for Peace, Creator of Space and Time, Wisest Human, and Almighty God. Rawat holds the single-season Major League Baseball record for Runs Batted In, wrote the songs for the musical Carousel, once scored 11 holes-in-one in a regulation 18-hole golf game, served two terms as Governor of Maryland, and is a member of the North American Bridge Association Hall of Fame and the College of Cardinals.

Or whatever. None of this is going to make Rawat any more intelligent, useful, interesting, or valuable, though. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please leave your personal feelings out of this. See content of the {{Calm}} template on top of this page: "Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? ... I have lengthily elaborated objections against your proposal. What's wrong with mine? (I won't fight over caps).--Rainer P. (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am calm. It's you people who want to proclaim that the guy is Lord of the, you know, Universe. So who's showing hysteria here, in the classic meaning.

Ambassador of peace is a pretty high bar, there. Even Herbert W. Armstrong only gets "he described himself as an 'ambassador without portfolio for world peace'". And Armstrong was an AAA-level charlatan, not some bush-league wannabe. Since its a high bar, we want multiple notable people indicating that this person is indeed, generally seen to be in the same league as Gandhi and so forth as an actual "ambassador of peace".

The Queensland Times... first of all, Queensland is a sparsely inhabited patch of mostly desert. But Brisbane and Townsville are fair sized towns. But the Queensland Times doesn't serve them. It serves Ipswich. It has a circulation of 10,000. It's not a particularly notable source for areas outside its area of remit, which is events occurring in and around Ipswich rather than who is or is not an major player on the world stage. I don't know much about Joel Gould. He does appear to own a shirt with a collar, which is something I guess, although not, apparently, a tie. He does not have a Wikipedia article and appears to have made little impression on this world, although there are a number of other Joel Goulds who have -- a lawyer in Illinois, a doctor in California, and so on. Unfortunately, our Mr Gould cannot piggyback on these other more notable Joel Goulds.

So some outback stringer for a third-rate rag decided to copy material material from a press release and his editor let him. What has that to do with the price of eggs? Nothing. Please stop trying to ride your hobbyhorse here. Come back when you have multiple cites from actually reliable and notable sources of people who have the standing, reputation, and intellectual chops to think about that matter who have decided "You know what? I've looked at this guy's career and I think 'ambassador of peace' really describes him". Herostratus (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, with a superficial view on the matter you can describe him anything you want. you don't even have an idea what he is promoting("Knowledge", Meditation). He hasn't brought peace to no place in the world since, in contrary to his promise he made when he was giving his peace bomb satsang. Defenders say he was just 12 twelve yerars old, but that would mean that he wasn't knowing what he was talking about and thus he would be nobody you could follow ,if you think this through. But you probably hear of this for the first time Surdas (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

From the head of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." So there are some good sources for the use of the term "Ambassador of Peace". That only means that he is often publicly referred to as that. Why deny it? Your personal opinion is of little value or interest here. BTW nobody wants to proclaim him Lord of the Universe. That thingy was taken from an Indian devotional song and was (and is) used out of context publicly only as a mock by detractors. It should not be in the first line of a summary. Like King of the Jews on top of Jesus' cross. Accordingly the WP article on Jesus does not say: He was also known as King of the Jews, because he wasn't, although it is standardly depicted on many crucifixes. So let's try and "improve the article", and work on a concise and informative summary, that represents what is said in the article, and have the article represent what is said in the sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lord of the Universe" was a film and an LP record album that was produced by Shri Hans Production, which was a dba (doing business as) of Divine Light Mission in the U.S. This is a different movie than the one featured in a Wikipedia article Lord of the Universe which was filmed about Prem Rawat. In the book Who is Guru Maharaj Ji, edited by Charles Cameron with an introduction by Rennie Davis, Prem Rawat was referred to as "Lord of the Universe" as well as "Satguru." All of these titles were used by DLM to promote Prem Rawat at the time, featuring Rennie Davis as a devotee and speaker at Rawat's live events. All of the titles in the aforementioned comments here have many, many reliable sources, including scholars and the press. Let's be careful to be civil and to only discuss the facts of this article, and especially to not revise history. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sylviecyn, but that was a couple of decades ago, when there were lots of perhaps even weirder things going on. I don't consider it 'revising history', when this item does not appear among the most important informations people need to know when they only read the first line of the summary. The ambassador of peace bit has been going on longer than the LOTU-bit, and it has been current for eight years now, globally accepted and well sourcable. Suppressing this information looks to me rather like denying the present, not revising history, if you need to pass a judgement. Do you deny that since the seventies (don't pin me on a year or two) the LOTU-bit is exclusively and pejoratively employed by detractors in order to make the subject appear dubious or ridiculous? That's why I don't think it belongs into the summary at all. It can go alright as a contemporary oddity into the article's history part.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that anyone is suppressing anything. "Ambassador of Peace" has it's own paragraph under 1983 to Present, for crying out loud. I agreed to it. So don't be accusing me or anyone else of suppressing Rawat's new title. By the way, 8 years out of 40 that Rawat has been living in the western world is not a majority of Rawat's time spent here. Let's now whitewash the subject of this article's past. Sylviecyn (talk)

Strawmen, no response. We are working on the summary. I'm sure you are aware that the introduction is a strategically very interesting section for any article, as many people don't get past it in such a long article. That's why we have to be painstakingly careful with contended material. When there is a paragraph on the ambassador in the article body, why not give it an appropriate placement in the lede? I'm sure it is sufficiently sourced, otherwise you would not have agreed with it. Why this dysfunctional maneuvre of getting it ploughed under with controversial oddities from the seventies, which only the >60 years old may personally remember? Now this is OR, but I'm convinced that meanwhile more people have heard of Rawat in connotation with Ambassador of Peace than with Lord of the Universe, despite seasoned detractors' tireless efforts to keep that aeruginous memory alive, because it can be used to provoke uninformed readers out of their good sense, as has been demonstrated here. That is not the idea of an encyclopedia that is comitted to NPOV in my understanding. Let's make this article as flawless as possible, and there is still room for that, especially in the summary, as it stands.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see a discussion that is going in circles again: despite that I drew the attention to the content of {{round in circles}} already in this section, and despite that I linked to Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace' already a few times we're having that same discussion all over again. Per WP:Consensus#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions I'm starting a WP:RfC now (see next section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to change the first sentence of the article. Update of the infobox does not seem to be controversial, except for whether or not to include the Brand Laureate Award. Seems best to start a new discussion on that, since apart from one editor supporting and one not supporting, others didn't comment on that issue. (Note, request for closure was posted at WP:ANRFC by me, but deemed unnecessary while the outcome of the RfC appear self-evident) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article 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 for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What is this? a pile-on laundry list of names and honorific titles? The name of the person and maybe one honorific will suffice. The article’s body can include references to other honorific or terms or endearment (providing there are reliable sources that attest that these terms have been widely used). See for example Mother Teresa : Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C., commonly known as Mother Teresa or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi […] He is also called Bapu (Gujarati: endearment for "father") in India. See also MOS:HONORIFIC- Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sylviecyn: Arbitration is never used for content disputes. RFCs are a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes. Once 30 days have elapsed, an experienced and uninvolved editor (often an administrator) will formally close the RFC with a recommendation (unless the editors involved in the dispute agree to resolve it on their own). RFCs goal is to seek outside input, and if you don’t see that as useful, why to conduct an RFC in the first place? If outside editors all tell you that the long list of honorifics are “ridiculous”, “empty”, “meaningless”, and “unencyclopedic and POV” it is because that may very well be the case. Use the article body to present and explain these titles, if you have the sources you say you do, but the lede should include the just name of the person as per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:

• just to avoid misunderstandings: it was I who called the RfC, not Sylviecyn (see above why I called the RfC).
• (general, also for the others commenting here) — it's not the Wikipedia editor's fault the subject of this article has been known under various names, same as it is not the WP editor's "fault" that Peter Schickele is generally much better known under another name. Each article subject has his/her specifics, and we're looking here for the best approach to those of Prem Rawat. Calling the title of an award-winning documentary related to Rawat “a joke” is maybe not the sort of input we're most looking for, but it may be indicative of how a first-time reader of the article might experience this. So indeed, some precaution is needed. Thus far the input is productive, in the sense that, e.g., it inspired me to explore the infobox route (see below), so that we may condense the intro, and need no long pile-on sentences there. That is, if we can find a consensus in that direction. So please, keep contributing to this RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What is the relevance of the aliases?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned here by bot. No it is not all right to add all those honorific titles, if that is what they are. They should be in the body of the text. They are ridiculously unencyclopedic and POV. Coretheapple (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Also summoned by bot. No. By this 'logic', the introductory sentence to Elizabeth II should be, what, a thousand words long? A 'title' given in a lead sentence is there because it is something that is used as an alternative to a person's name, not because it is simply an honorific they have received from someone. Unless there are independent reliable sources that actually use these terms an a substitute for his name, then they should not be in the lead sentence. Show me a few RS that use "Ambassador of Peace" or "Lord of the Universe" as a name for him, without some kind of qualification to let people know who they are talking about, and then the listing of them in the introductory sentence could be reasonably argued for. Revent^talk
• Comment - These honourifics are empty and meaningless - even the queen of England doesn't have all her titles in the lede, and hers are real. Zambelo; talk 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've listed the seven names and (honorific) qualifiers included in the first sentence of the Rajneesh article above, so I don't think the proposal is all that excentric.
• Elizabeth II has little value for comparison, see Sylviecyn's argumentation below, which I second.

Watkin Tudor Jones
Birth name	Watkin Tudor Jones
Also known as	Ninja Max Normal The Man Who Never Came Back MC Totally Rad Yang Weapon Destructo Waddy WAD:e
Born	(1974-09-26) 26 September 1974 Johannesburg, South Africa
Genres	Alternative hip hop, rave
Years active	1995–present
Labels	Interscope, Cherrytree, Polydor, Rhythm Records

• Looking for a non-royal BLP the closest I could find for a "multiple a.k.a." example is Watkin Tudor Jones, where the lead paragraph only refers to the best known of these a.k.a.'s, while all the others are listed in the infobox (apart from their further treatement in the article itself). See example at te right. Wouldn't that be an acceptable idea for something that could be implemented for the Rawat article? See what this could look like for Rawat, below on the right (just a brainstorm preliminary proposition, might need to be hammered out in the details):

Prem Rawat/Archive 52
Prem Rawat 2007 cropped.jpg Prem Rawat in Lisbon, Portugal 2007
Born	Prem Pal Singh Rawat (1957-12-10) 10 December 1957 Haridwar, India
Other names	Maharaji* Guru Maharaj Ji* Balyogeshwar*
Occupation	inspirational speaker*
Years active	1966–present
Organization	The Prem Rawat Foundation
Known for	Peace Bomb satsang* Techniques of Knowledge Millennium '73 Lord of the Universe (film) Peace Is Possible (book)
Notable work	Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?* Words of Peace
Title	Satguru* (Perfect Master*)
Movement	Divine Light Mission* Elan Vital*
Spouse	Marolyn Rawat
Parent(s)	Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Rajeshwari Devi
Relatives	Satpal Maharaj
Awards	Ambassador for Peace
Website	premrawat.com
Notes
* obsolete and/or no longer supported/distributed by Rawat and his organizations

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Rainer P.: above I wrote "example ..., where the lead paragraph only refers to the best known of these a.k.a.'s, while all the others are listed in the infobox (apart from their further treatement in the article itself). ... Wouldn't that be an acceptable idea for something that could be implemented for the Rawat article?" — so, yes I'm exploring that possibility.
• Re. Peace Bomb satsang: I seem to remember it is related to a mentioning in the The Guinness Book of World Records. Yes it might ring a bell for some readers. Might mark it as obsolete too though, not sure, what do others think? Anyhow, it is in the article, end of last paragraph of Prem Rawat#1960s, a bit out of chronology while the Peace Bomb address was 1970. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Tweaked the sample infobox a bit in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. "...Lord of the Universe..." Is this a joke? Of course, an article can't open with a list of fancruft honorifics. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • added "obsolete" indicator to some of the names in the sample infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

• Comment - What is this rubbish. This RFC is an abuse of process. AlanS^talk 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would the RfC be an "abuse of process"? And if so, what process would you recommend? As such the comment is totally unhelpful, as well regarding the content of the question asked in the RfC, as regarding the suitability of the process used. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you or those of the "regulars" here who support your proposal realise quite how far you've strayed from some fundamentals of Wikipedia. You should close this RfC and forget the whole idea. No article should ever list the types of honorifics you want in the way you want. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tx for the input. Remains vague however. Which fundamentals? Who should close the RfC? It's not recommended that involved parties (like those commenting here, or those who started the RfC) close it unilaterally. Feel free to list at WP:ANRFC if you feel strong about this. What other process would you recommend when {{Round in circles}} applies? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment — as far as I'm concerned, the focus of the RfC has shifted from a proposed rewrite of the opening sentence (which I'm no longer petitioning) to a proposed update of the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Re. "international speaker": "international" is not part of a job description. There are enough references for the "inspirational" part, which is indeed indicating a type of speaker, so part of the job description.
  • Re. "Humanitarian leader" as "occupation": really? Never saw a reliable source use that qualification, and certainly not as an "occupation" description.
  • Re. "Ambassador of Peace" as an "award" or a "title": has been discussed before (see archives, I think most recent archive page). Listed as "award" on personal website, so per WP:SPS: "award". Again, please refrain from moving in circles w.r.t. content cleared after a discussion filed in the archives.
  • Re. "And he is not really known for Lord of the Universe, that was only (..whatever...)": really? Lord of the Universe (film) has been cleared multiple times after (repetitive) discussions contained in the archives (multiple pages). Some people don't "like" it, so much is clear, but that doesn't affect the content of the article.
  • Re. "Pacific Branding Lifetime Award". a.k.a. Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Brand Laureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award. Afaik has only one (independent) source. Not sure whether its significance merits inclusion in the infobox. A lot of things are "quite exclusive", doesn't signify automatic inclusion in an infobox.
    • Re. [1] - still only local news in the country where it happened. Not convinced yet this is infobox matter. What do others think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Re. "Satguru/Perfect Master is not really a title, but rather his position in his originating movement" hence a title in his originating movement. That's what title means.
  • Re. "Guru Maharaj Ji was actually a title...": nothing in the text quoted from Hummel indicates "title". The text doesn't contain the word (nor anything in that vein in German). Also, of no importance: it was what he was known as, whether a title or not. It has been indicated as an "a.k.a." in the first sentence of the article for many years now, without much opposition (and indeed, that first sentence is apparently not going to change anywhere soon), so there shouldn't be any problem to list it in the same way in the infobox.
  • Re. "works": only the most significant for a public not limited to his followers. It's about the works that have proven to be significant, not what his followers would like to promote (see WP:NOT).
  • Re. Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? authorship: discussed over and over (see archives). The book contains a substantial amount of speeches (satsangs) by Rawat. Other content (like an introduction) was added, and Rawat's texts were edited by someone else, but the book is no less a notable collection of his works.
  • Re. "things missing in the article": when there hasn't been any consensus to mention them in the article, we're certainly not going to mention them in the infobox. Again: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those who'd like to promote Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

- I won't argue over international or inspirational.

- TPRF is a charitable organisation, this is recognized in the article itself, and he is the founder and leader, so 'humanitarian leader' is not as digressive as you make it sound. Whether it can be called an occupation - why not? It is in a way less elusive than 'inspirational speaking'. That some people may not like it should be irrelevant (I am aware that Rawat's detractors use the word 'humatitarian leader' exclusively in quotation-marks, see Google, but they use it ...).

- Award or title is not an issue I wll invest energy into.

- I have added another independent source for the Pacific Award. So there are two sources now. Some items in the article bear less relevance and are supported by only one source (like the 'smuggling' bit). It says in the Malaysian Times: "Prem Rawat, was awarded the “The Brand Laureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award” by the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation in Kuala Lumpur recently for his global humanitarian work and achievements. Specifically, the award was given for his work for peace over the last four decades. Prem Rawat responding to the award said the fundamentals of humanity need to be factored in when finding resolutions to many of the afflictions within society. “It is the humanity that we need to bring back. We have so much technology, so much technology. Who is working on evolving the humane portion of that humanity? We have to.” Prem Rawat was the fifth recipient of the Lifetime Achievement award. Among the other four who have been given the prestigious award are Nelson Mandela, Hilary Clinton and former Malaysian prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad."

- Why not mention books he has published, even if their proliferation is relatively small? It's his bio. And link Words of Peace with WOPG.org. And BTW I am not promoting Rawat here, but trying to work on a not yet NPOV version of this article. That is why the Ambassador of Peace-bit should be placed next to that hallowed "triple cult" paragraph in introduction, as I had proposed to begin with. Without diluting it with that old LOTU-racket. I think, the consistent reaction of the latest RFC should be allowed for, also in the info-box.

- And yes, I can relate to the arguments given on the RS-Noticeboard on WAF and Pledge to Peace. We can wait for a better source.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• added the http://www.wopg.org/ link to Words of Peace in the sample infobox.
• What's not in the article (yet) is, at this point, not considered for inclusion in the infobox. I mean, content may be considered for adding to the article, and when it does, the infobox may be reviewed. The current discussion, however, is about the changes we may apply to the infobox under the current conditions, relating to the current checks and balances of the content of the article. Changing those checks and balances is not the object of the current discussion, but feel free to start new discussions in separate sections about such topics (of course, taking account of the "no mere archive recycling" limitations on that). This goes for "humanitarian leader" (not in the article, so certainly not considered for the infobox), for "books he has published" but not mentioned in the article, etc.
• Further, not everything mentioned in the article goes in the infobox (for obvious reasons, the infobox would become as large as the article). The infobox summarizes the most important points. I'm still in doubt about the "Brand Laureate" award, and would like input by others. Until there is a general consensus this would be worth mentioning in the infobox, my current feeling is that the infobox is viable without it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am afraid, there are not enough neutral editors following this discussion here. Before we run into the predictable stand-off with Rawat's detractors, we could probably save time and energy by summoning an RfC right away, like: Is the Brand Laureate Award notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Those comments are not helpful. I could say the same thing about adherrents but I refrain from shooting darts, and even have agreed to a couple of your recent article edits. The same respect from you would be appreciated. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• ? Apparently still the same misconceptions about the RfC process:
  1. RfC is not intended to "prevent" anyone from participating, as I said before.
  2. The current RfC is ongoing, it would be bad manner to call another one while the current one is ongoing. As such the whether-or-not to mention the Brand Laureate in the infobox question is part of the current RfC (since the focus of that RfC has shifted from first sentence of the article to infobox, and the question is under the header of this RfC). As said before, if you'd like to close this RfC prematurely (instead of automatically in somewhat less than two weeks): → WP:ANRFC. But then, that wouldn't be a good idea since the new ideas that have sprung up in the ongoing RfC lately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My intention is not to prevent anyone from editing, but to account for this article's special pathology. I am not really aware that the infobox contents are part of the RfC, but I would of course not close the current RfC or interfere with it by starting a new one, when the issue is actually contained in the current one.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. WP:HONORIFIC says that honorifics can be discussed in the body, but even then I'm not sure that these over-the-top honorifics should be listed. Lord of the Universe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• No The honorific titles clutter the introduction and if included in the page at all should be placed in the body instead. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• No honorifics in the lead. (However the first paragraph should be rewritten anyway. It violates NPOV in that it focuses on cult, including a coatrack section, and discusses pejrative and criticism before it presents an real information. I have started a new section on this problem)(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

Response to RfCs comments here

1. I don't agree that this is a "pile on" of names and/or honorifics. All of the names, titles, and honorifics, except for "Ambassador of Peace" (AOP) were widely used in Prem Rawat's life, and all of them, except for AOP and "inspirational speaker," are well-sourced by scholars, media, and by Rawat's organizations. "Inspirational Speaker" should be removed from the mix, imo because it isn't sourced.

2) The relevance of the aliases is that Prem Rawat promoted himself, as did his NRM, which was called Divine Light Mission (DLM), using these aliases/honorifics, and have been widely sourced by scholars of NRMs in published books; legitimate, reliably sourced media articles, as well as DLM and Elan Vital. (Elan Vital was a name change for Divine Light Mission and now is a defunct organization.) There is a list of sources under "Subpages" above, on this page for your reference. "Lord of the Universe," Satguru, and "Perfect Master" were all used in the 60s and 70s, again, to promote Guru Maharaj Ji as the one true Lord of the Universe, or "Satguru." Rawat dropped the "Guru" title in the early 80s, and is now called "Maharaji," as well as by his legal name Prem Rawat. Movies were made titled "Lord of the Universe." One was produced by non-adherants and has its own article on Wikipedia, called aptly, Lord of the Universe. The other is also titled "Lord of the Universe" and "Satguru," and those were produced by Shri Hans Productions, which was a d/b/a of Divine Light Mission. In addition to that, there are countless reliable sources verifying that title.

3) It's not helpful for involved editors here to read: "They are ridiculously unencyclopedic..." or "These honourifics are empty and meaningless." To compare this article with the Queen of England's article is comparing apples with oranges. There is an article dedicated soley to Queen Elizabeth II's titles called List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. This is a controversial article about a NRM's decades-long leader, not a monarch of the United Kingdom who is obviously well known around the world. Prem Rawat is not well known around the world, except in adherants' circles.

Perhaps other regular editors here can provide the many, many sources that explain the relevance of, and necessity for these names to be included in the lede and article. Please remember this article has been extremely controversial for almost a decade, and there have been arguments throughout those years that lead to unsuccessful mediation and arbitration. I apologize for not providing links to the reliable sources as requested, but they exists in spades. My husband is very sick with a chronic illness, and I don't have time to go through all the disputed names/titles/honorifics (again!) in order to provide sources at this time -- I've already done that countless times on these talk pages.

I thank the commentators for their feedback. I get what you say on the style issue, vis a vis, the first sentence listing all the names, but, imo, commentators who made snarky comments and asked rhetorical questions, like saying titles/honorifics "are meaningless" or "ridiculous," doesn't help in the least to resolve this issue. They are not "meaningless" nor are they "ridiculous." And, they are real titles/honorifics, widely sourced. Moreover, I find it difficult to understand how anyone can comment on any article (my beef with Wikipedia's policies) if one doesn't familiarize themself with an article, its sources, and its history. I don't find much in the comments that are objective. Perhaps we need to go back to Abritration on this. Mediation never worked with this article, so it's probably back to the drawing board, again. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the spontaneous reactions of uninvolved editors are very helpful, as they provide a chance to compensate for a tendency not to see something obvious for others looking from outside at one's familiar domain (in German we have a word for that: 'betriebsblind'). This is how the article style impacts on a non-biased information-seeking person, and the comments give editors valuable hints for improvement.

BTW the Shri-Hans-Production 16mm-film 'The Lord of the Universe' was not produced nor offered for general public, but used intimately within the group of Rawat's students in the early seventies. There was a devotional song translated from India, 'The Lord of the Universe', from which the film derived its title. The other film was produced by non-adherents for U.S. Television and carried the title „Lord of the Universe“ in a clearly sarcastic connotation. The title was never used as a substitute or alternative for a name, except to ridicule the subject. So it might turn up in WP as a controversial oddity, if at all, in the text body, but certainly not in the first line of the summary.

There are however several good sources for the growing public use of the title Ambassador of Peace to announce the subject in public media. It has been bestowed on the subject by at least three independent institutions for his merits. Not really obvious why that should be less „real“ than any merely inherited title.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please let me add for clarification: The words of that old devotional song went: "The Lord of the Universe has come to us this day, and he's come to show us the light, and he's come to show us the love, and he's come to show us the way back to our Father.", and the chorus went: "Open up your heart to the Universe of Love, and he will fill you up." In the lyrics it is made clear that it's about the 'Universe of Love' - and he's is apostrophized as the Lord of THAT. It was never a title or part of his name, but a poetic figure, not the imperialistic outrage, that mass-media have sarcastically tried to make it sound like. If it were mentioned at all in a BLP, it needs to be embedded in the appropriate factual context, as an example of the style western media covered his activities - not uncommented in the lede. That appears "ridiculously unencyclopedic and POV", indeed.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. 'betriebsblind': I had hoped for somewhat more direct interaction between the "regulars" and the outsiders I invited by RfC, not the regulars creating their own separate corner. That's why I answered above (apart from this note). I see some of the external commentators gave answers to the regulars (despite the section title separator), which I think a good sign. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, I wasn't sure if the "regulars" were supposed to interact here. It seemed to me, the outsiders' first impression was quite reasonable ("DeCausa:...'Lord of the Universe...' Is this a joke?") It's not a joke, as it's not funny, it is plain derision. I have offered explanations above. It is the main reason for my firm resistance to your proposal. BTW "Known for 'Peace Bomb satsang'..." - really? You think a reader will go: Oh, that was him? It should also go into the history section, as well as the whole Millennium-73-issue. Would make the lede shorter and more concise, if that's your objective.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically I like the info-box idea, it looks really concise. We would have to discuss what's to be included. E.g. 'inspirational speaker' does not cover his role in TPRF, which is a NGO charity. Humanitarian? 'Known for' could include the 'Brussels Pledge to Peace'-declaration from 2012 (That one is missing in the article. I will add a sentence and a source to the article, also its presentation before the UK-Parliament in June 2014). And of course, the derisive 'Lord of the Universe'-bit is so contoversial and not essential, needs not be in such a prominent place. And the award-list should be longer, at least the Pacific-Lifetime-Brand-award is noteworthy. We could probably find an agreement. Now this could enable us to keep the lede shorter. But I think we would still have to address the relevance of those names/titles in the lede, like e.g. that the title 'Guru Maharaj Ji' was a direct consequence of succession after his father's death, 'Balyogeshwar' was before that. Or maybe that could go into the text body. Re: notable works: 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji' was not written by him. He did write some books, can be seen on Amazon.com, maybe these could be mentioned instead.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., would you please start another section with your written proposal(s) along with with reliable sources? That way we can start fresh and calmly discuss your proposals. Please don't change anything without concensus. You know I've been accommodating to your previous proposals, so I welcome a draft so we can discuss. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

#Pledge to Peace / WAF --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I like 'international speaker'. Sounds neutral enough for an info-box as 'Occupation'. http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Councillors-called-classify-film/story-23029082-detail/story.html . And Humanitarian leader (TPRF). And Ambassador of Peace under titles (it is not really an award, or is it?). And he is not really known for Lord of the Universe, that was only the sardonic name of a critical TV-production. Under 'Awards' the Pacific Branding Lifetime Award should be mentioned, as it is quite exclusive. Satguru/Perfect Master is not really a title, but rather his position in his originating movement. Guru Maharaj Ji was actually a title that he took over from his father as a sign of succession ( Reinhart Hummel, in 'Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen' writes, "Der jüngste von ihnen [die 4 Söhne] mit bürgerlichem Namen Prem Pal Singh Rawat [...], war damals 8 Jahre alt. Er offenbarte sich nach dem Tod des Vaters der Anhängerschaft als der wiederverkörperte "Guru Maharaji" und Berichte wurden publik, dass der Vater ihn zum Nachfolger bestellt habe."

And 'Works' should only name productions that carry his authorship, not secondary literature. There are some books on sale at Amazon.com, and the TV-series Words of Peace is probably noteworthy at this place.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC is not asking about infoboxes so not sure why the RfC has veered off onto an off-topic discussion. Its probably better to deal with the RfC question then open discussion on the info boxes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taiwan Outlook interview

I'ld like to make an addition at the foot of "Media"- section: "On the subject of criticism, Rawat made the following comments on a Taiwan News channel: "“So far I’m concerned, my focus in life is not to appease critics, but is to bring the message of peace to people. […] When you’ve been doing what I have been doing for 5 decades plus, yes you’re gonna get critics. […] People said, “He’s going to fade away.” Well, how about fifty-two years. And I’m still doing strong, because it is about my conviction. And my conviction is “peace is possible”. And I will do everything that I must do, because it’s important to me that people find that peace in their life. ”, and source it here, from 21:00 on. Inquiry at RS-noticeboard says it's o.k. (see: WP:RS, 'Taiwan Outlook')--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

His '73 riposte to criticism was much more remarkable, and recorded in third-party reliable sources:

His followers, when they have reacted to such criticism, have tended to point to issues of perception while Rawat himself has attributed it to ability to give peace and his mistrust of the press.

But wait... that was removed by Rainer P. [2]

If Rawat only riposts to criticism in a way that is picked up in reliable sources every four decades, I don't think we need more than one mentioning in the article, and I'd go for the one in the secondary source then, not the one in the primary source.

In general the subject of the article seems to devote precious little time to riposting to criticism, per WP:BALASPS we shouldn't give it excess weight in the article.

Note, Prem Rawat#Lifestyle currently contains the Rawat quote with which he replied to criticism in '73.

BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 [3], the original post read:

Reactions of his followers to such points of criticism, if any, tend to point to perception issues, while Rawat asserted his ability to give peace and his mistrust of the press.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Please explain, why should we prefer a >40 year old source, and an incoherent statement, especially, when it has rightfully been removed? And, in this case, when we have a chance to quote a primary source, where it suits the question a lot better for authenticity and intellegibility, and is approved by the RS-noticeboard? And what makes you think Rawat's response to criticism has "excess weight" in this article, when it has not been adressed at all in a coherent way, while there is a lot of criticism? The dusty "reception/media"-section could indeed use some update information, don't you agree?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia:Indentation in talk page discussions.

Please explain your use of "incoherent". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage. But it specifically means unintelligible due to a lack of cohesion, or sticking together. An incoherent argument may sound something like this. "I deserve to go to the dance because it is the second Tuesday of the month and my feet are a size ten." The reasons do not follow each other logically and to not even relate. It's an incoherent mess." (from: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/incoherent). E.g. to my mind it's incoherent not to keep a specific personal level of indentation in an ongoing discussion, as it makes it easier to identify who is posting. But I'll of course do my best for the quality of this article, so it won't get stuck in technical formalities.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 [4]" is what I posted above: "unintelligibility" not caused by incoherence, but by bad syntax. I never said I would go back to the bad syntax that led to this clarification request. As I said the actual Rawat quote (not the unintelligible summary of it) is still in the article (one time, no unintelligibility or incoherence involved) in Prem Rawat#Lifestyle, and as I said I would keep it in the article one time, so your question "why should we prefer ... an incoherent statement ...?" is without object, nobody suggests anything like that.

Regarding the rest of your previous questions: generally in Wikipedia secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), the rest of my reasons is WP:BALASPS. Note that I rewrote that policy section a few months ago in part for something that happened in connection to the Rawat article, in case Rainer P. apparently misunderstanding WP:BALASPS, see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section. So I invite you to please revisit that policy section (and the talk page section on why it changed), because I see the same type of misunderstanding reappearing in your questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Francis, so complicated to say (or to obscure) a simple thing? As soon as I find the time and the mood to dig through your statement, I probably will. I am convinced though, you could simply say what you mean, without having me spend hours to find out if there is a point to it at all, or whether you just don't like it. I liked that RfC thing you kicked off recently, maybe we could shorten the process by applying that again for this matter. Like: Is it okay to use this quote ..., and so on. Maybe we can find agreement over the sentence in question.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

RainerP., is there a date on that video? I don't see a problem with your proposal, but it would be better if it had a date stamp on it. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a date on the video itself, but there is a parallel link to the program: http://web.pts.org.tw/macroview/taiwan_outlook/index.php?id=405 , that says June 13, 2014, 12:00 h.

Sylviecyn, do you think it is necessary to provide an additional footnote only for the exact date?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

TV-interviews

I would like to add a sentence to the 'Media'-section, like: In the 21st century, Rawat gave some extensive TV-interviews, and use a primary source like This , which is admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos'). One or the other interview can also be referenced to a secondary source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYGhnChLT0) and (http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12), perhaps more.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"extensive" is an interpretative qualifier, not allowed per WP:PRIMARY. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, the sentence you have asked permission for at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#YouTube-videos is: 'He gave some extensive interviews to TV-channels', significantly different from what is proposed here.

Further, you only *proposed* it there, currently without anyone commenting, so the contention "admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos')" is insincere to put it mildly, but the word should be "misleading". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss the exact wording. I don't care about the 'extensive'. And I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Let's be constructive. Pick a wording!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion: wouldn't it be a good idea to add such interviews that have been publicly broadcast, and have passed WP:RSN as being an acceptable primary source, to Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations?

As for what it could mean for the content of the Rawat article: I'd take the content of the interviews as a whole, and see what gets most attention: for the #Taiwan Outlook interview above most of it is Rawat telling about his current projects afaics. Maybe the Rawat article can benefit from an update on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think, it's a good idea, Francis, to mention the interviews in the Bibliography. For the article, to keep it short and readable, I think it is enough to generally mention that he gave those interviews, as a fact that can go into the deficient 'media'-section, in combination with links to the interviews, so the reader can look for himself, if they are interested. To evaluate them contentwise seems an interesting and sophisticated task, but it is not necessary for characterizing his relation to public media. Regardless we can pick parts of the interviews for sourcing other contexts, like my suggestion concerning his attitude toward criticism, as above, and then use verbatim quotes. But for giving the 'media'-section a quick update, a short mention with references should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

This edit [5] was a WP:BOLD attempt to correct several problems in the lede, some of which were highlighted during the recently closed RFC (honorifics, describing criticism before describing notability, etc.), and other issues related to simplifying a somewhat convoluted English grammar, for readability. The edit was reverted, so I leave it to you to address these issues on your own. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cwobeel! Thank you for your contribution, and please feel welcome to this discussion, that could really use some fresh blood.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'll pass. It is clear that there is a measure of WP:OWN here, and the discussions are over-the-top confusing and long winded, with very little progress to show for. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not completely related to this, but still: some time ago I expanded auto-archive time lapse from 30 to 100 days (as many talk page sections were archived, then brought back for further discussion, resulting in messy archive pages when the sections were re-archived). 100 days was probably too long, too many finished discussions linger on here, leading unsurprisingly to the remark this page is getting "confusing". So now I put the time lapse to 60 days, but would agree to 45 days too. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly a step toward sanity. I have on several occasions tried and reverted the bot's archiving, but that was never sustainable. Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Brand Award in infobox?

See #RfC on first sentence of the article. What are the views on including the Brand Award in the infobox? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is enough to mention that he has been awarded with a multifarious variety of civic accolades, not highlighting a single one (except it some day were the Peace Noble Prize ...). No refs necessary, they are given in the article. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Analyzing what WP:primary sources says, we can even source it with http://www.premrawat.com/awards/.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the problem. In my view this award is not significant enough for the infobox, so I definitely would like more input on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess the sheer number of various accolades is notable. I suggest a sentence like: He has received numerous civic accolades (please correct style, if necessary), and source it like above?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't write such sentences in the infobox list of specific topics. Either the accolades are named, or not included (in the infobox, article content is a different matter). Really, need more input from other editors on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not satisfactory. What's the use of an infobox, if it can't really reflect the facts? I see that listing all awards might exceed the infobox format, but omitting them does not seem to be a good solution. Why not summarize and insert a link to the relevant text passages?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But I agree that the Brand Award may not be significant enough to deserve an isolated mention in the infobox.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Ambassador for/of Peace?

Francis, I think it should be of Peace, as that seems to be the prevalent version.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

More Lede...

This paragraph:

In November 1973 the Millennium '73 festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, centered on Rawat's addresses. Although media attention was peaking, attendance to the festival was much lower than the expected 100,000. Within half a year — Rawat had turned sixteen, married, and had severed ties with his mother and eldest brother — he had gained an active control of the DLM (by now established in 55 countries), except its Indian severed stem. From the early 80s he discarded ostensible references to religion. Ashrams were closed and the part of DLM he controlled was replaced by Elan Vital.

Is not very good grammatically, it's not particularly well constructed, and as a paragraph, it's not really a cohesive thought. I suggest the following, keeping all the same information, only improving the readability:

In November 1973 the [link to: Millenium '73] festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and while this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than predicted. Following this there were many rapid changes for Rawat, he turned 16, became [link to: emancipated], got married, and along the way, severed ties with the original Indian arm of the DLM, along with his mother and eldest brother as well. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). Beginning in the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion, closed the ashrams, and the name of the DLM was replaced with [link to: Elan Vital].

If you don't like that, I'm ok with that too :)

Ciao again! (back next year? lol)
- Maelefique^(talk) 15:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maelefique! Where have you been? I think your suggestion is an improvement, and I only offer minor changes:

In November 1973 the [link to: Millenium '73] festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and although this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than expected. Immediately following this came many changes for Rawat; he turned 16, became [link to: emancipated] and got married. He also severed his ties to his mother and eldest brother, and with the original Indian DLM organization. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). In the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion in his speeches and closed the ashrams. The name of the DLM was changed to [link to: Elan Vital].--Rainer P. (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, life pulls at me from many directions, I have a new company that takes up far too much of my time these days... I think some of your changes are good, but the "Immediately" that you added makes it seem like those things took place within weeks or something, and they didn't, so I don't like that addition as much. I would think that severing ties with the Indiam arm of the DLM was more important than severing ties with his brother and mother, so it would come first in the sentence, but you could easily argue the opposite as well, so I can live with that change, although I would take out the word "his", they're just "ties", they bind to both ends, you can't sever only one end of a tie. Although now that I've said that in my head 50 times, I like it all less, lol, how about "he cut his links to...blah blah blah" (and yes, I realize, I left "his" in there, doesn't seem to sound as odd, it should, but it doesn't :) ). -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Right; let's spare a few words, makes it sound more encyclopedic, too: In November 1973 the [link to: Millenium '73] festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and although this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than expected. Following this came many changes for Rawat; he turned 16, became [link to: emancipated] and got married. He cut ties to his mother and eldest brother, and with the original Indian DLM organization. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). In the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion in his speeches and closed the ashrams. The name of the DLM was changed to [link to: Elan Vital].--Rainer P. (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I like it. :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking RfC

Francis, I think that the lede does not reflect the article content in an NPOV way, as it should. Especially that cult-sentence is a major flaw, when it is not balanced by complementary statements. As we can't seem to reach an agreement over this, I would accept the result of an RfC. Maybe we can find an agreement over the question we should submit to the RfC. What do you think/suggest? What is others' opinion on this?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Accelerating the process

Waiting for all-out agreement has obviously put this article into a stall. What can I do for accelerating the process of improving this BLP, while the subject is still alive? RfC? Placing an NPOV-tag? Complain at the Village Pump? Any ideas out there?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view, the problem is not with the lede, it's with the article. You may be correct when you say that the "cult" sentence isn't reflected adequately in the article, but that's the problem, not the lede, and I'm sure you know why there isn't more in the article already about the DLM reaching cult status. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the 'cult'-bit, as for some DLM-phenomena in fact there may be no alternative word, and the public stamping has been quite sustainable in many minds who witnessed that time. So it undoubtably has its legitimacy in the article as well as in the lede, as a historical fact. Then again, Rawat has not been leader of the DLM for very long, and it is his bio. There is a seperate article on DLM. To not balance the lede-info with later and recent developments, when Rawat had gained predominant recognition, which make up a lot of the article's actuality and which are mentioned and sourced in the article body, is definitely POV and has been recognized as such also by neutral editors. I have made a proposal above, for discussion, and it has not really been discussed: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later also been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace.", which from my point of view is still a rather conservative approach. Please remember, the majority of readers may not get past the lede section, so it is of high importance to have it represent the whole article, which is meant to be a biography, and not concentrate on however noisy inceptive throes. This is my concern, and the reason why I can't just let it alone.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

A related comment by Jimbo on his talk page: diff --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you would stay with the topic. My complaint pertains to an essential formal discrepancy between article and lede. I have no problem with Wales's politics, nor with majorities and minorities. I don't really find a relevant relation between your cite and our objective here, please explain what you mean straight out.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead first paragraph

The lead first paragraph is poorly constructed, in my opinion, so that it creates a non-neutral and pejorative tone immediately, as well as possibly being burdened with honorifics. I may be commenting on what has already been discussed. To create neutrality:

• Expansion of DLM in the first paragraph of a lead on Rawat is unnecessary and coatrack content. I realize this has been discussed. I believe with my cmt added to other comments there is consensus to remove the coatrack content.
• Honorifics don't belong in a lead.
• Too much focus on cult in the opening paragraph of the lead, One statement is enough to establish that some regard Rawat a cult leader. The rest should he removed and can be added to the body of the article dependent on weight
• Pejorative content on Rawat should not precede the content that explains Rawat. Its illogical to present criticism of the man before the reader knows anything about the man as happens in the first paragraph of the lead.

I think the first and second points can be taken care of easily with the past discussion on the coatrack content, and the RfC. I should clarify that its not up to me to decide the outcome of the RfC on honorifics just that the issue is in discussion.

An infobox discussion seems premature given the lead has not been stabilized.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

I suppose we can take this up again here on the active talk page where the last discussion on this topic was left unconcluded: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2. OK if everyone reads it there, or would it be best to copy that discussion back here (in order not to double what was already said)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing that "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" be removed from the lede, too? Rawat's current followers still call him Maharaji. How are those honorifics perjorative? They are terms in hindi that in no way are critical of him. "Maharaji" means "great king." The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru, when he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, as well as the huge publicity he achieved by the mainstream press during his first years in the west. The vast, and I mean vast majority of reliable sources, including books and articles by scholars of new religious movements, refer to Rawat a cult leader and by the honorific Guru Maharaj Ji. Additionally, something it not libel or perjorative if it's true. All of this material has been already meticulously sourced. Sylviecyn (talk)

(e.c.) Littleolive oil shouldn't split that part of the discussion of in a new section while there's still an RfC ongoing about the first sentence above, see #RfC on first sentence of the article. I don't want to run ahead of the closure of that discussion, but seems like there's going to be no change to the first sentence, nor the addition, nor the removal of anything ("Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" are well known a.k.a.'s in the older literature, there's virtually no mentionings of "Prem Rawat" in those sources that are still widely available in newspaper's websites, google books etc.; Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect, thus recognition-wise it should be mentioned too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

if somebody is in favour of NRMs, maybe because he or she is engaged in one or another themselves, TM for example, it makes sense to support another NRM, because they may then stick together and push POVs positive of their subjects. I don't know if it is true, but i saw exactly that with jossi and zappaz a long time ago, here. Surdas (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, speculation is maybe not what we need right now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

¿Some regard Prem Rawat a cult leader? That should be "regarded", in the seventies and perhaps eighties, nowadays probably mostly old ex-premies from that time.¿The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru? ¿Not the more than 50 events in different cities around the world every year, some of them in universities and institutions of international prestige, addressing millions, after he was a boy? ¿His current followers still call him Maharaji? I am a current follower and I have not seen nor heard the word Maharaji for decades. Most young premies don’t even know that word. All publications and all events use the name Prem Rawat since more or less the times of Elan Vital if I remember right, looong ago. --PremieLover (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's clarify:

• I did not suggest splitting off anything. I did suggest that RfC should continue with out splitting the discussion off to discuss info boxes.
• I did not suggest removing Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji". I did suggest and per MOS that honorifics don't belong in the lead. These are not honorifics.
• Let's not confuse editing a so called NRM article on Wikipedia with being in favour of NRMs and I have to admit I don't know that that means. Further, speculation as to why someone edits an article is just that, speculation, and doesn't really help anything along. i originally began editing this article because I saw an unpleasant antagonistic situation and wanted to help try to maintain a more neutral environment. I'm not saying I did or can do that, but I did and would like to continue trying.
• I do believe the first paragraph of the lead is non-neutral because of multiple issues as I outlined above.
• An RfC is a community wide discussion or should be. The thread I started here describing concerns with the first paragraph of the article can be dealt with by editors here first. These are two different kinds of discussion. If it is confusing to have both an RfC going on and this thread too, I suggest we abandon the thread until the RfC has been closed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC))
  • For clarity, Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar are honorifics, I suppose that's where the misunderstanding stemmed from. In the lead they're treated as a.k.a.'s, which they also are, and that's why it is best not to remove them there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget: The problem was not really Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji, because those were actually used as an equivalent for names over several years. Balyogeshwar was a child name and should me marked as such. The problem arose with the indistinctive and ostensible use of Perfect Master and, above all, Lord of the Universe. Perhaps we can settle that now. The Ambassador of Peace bit should be placed next to the cult bit, with an indication of the chronological gradient.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the original honorifics have become "also known as" names. Whether the names are in current usage may be important to note.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)_

I agree. There is a different significance between someone using several aliases parallel at the same time, and someone using different a.k.a.s in a meaningful chronological order. This should not be completely levelled over in the sentence, as it would be misleading.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Sylviecyn

Okay, maybe we can do this: Leave in "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaji" and take out Balyogeshwar, which was not used much in the west as he got older. What the heck. I'm sick of fighting over this. So my proposal is to change the first sentence of the lede, as well as removing all and/or parts of two sentences that discuss his being described as a cult leader, which is covered in the beginning of the "Reception" section. And, the criticism of "intellectual content" and "lifestyle" bits are also covered in the body of the article under "Lifestyle." Maybe that will satisfy Oliveoil's suggestions. Let's make some progress.  :)

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 Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1] He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and 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 leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9]

It's a rough draft, meaning I'm trying to be flexible. In writing, my believe is that less is more. Please review and let's discuss. Thx Sylviecyn (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

see [6] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• This draft is Ok and I could support it. The DLM content edges on coatrack content so is what I would have removed, but its fine left in with the other changes. Rather than argue I'll be happy to go along with Sylviecyn's efforts... and thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

Sylviecyn's proposal sounds reasonable to me. Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji may formally be honorifics, but actually were used as names over many years. I guess many students have only learned much later of his civic name Prem Rawat. So I think it is justified to mention them in the summary.

I would like to modify the following sentence about the aprupt appearance of the hitherto unheard oi DLM in the West in a coherent way, so that it becomes clear that it had already climaxed in India, when Prem came to the West as a child, just to avoid creating a distorted image. Then the cult bit, followed by the ambassador of peace bit. Opinions/suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior discussion regarding third sentence of lede (and possible additional section on movements/organizations)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51 § 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.

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)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As we seem to agree on Sylviecyn's proposal, is there any reason to delay making the edit?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? We didn't agree at all on Sylviecyn's proposal. As nobody seems to object to mine (after bringing it for the second time to this talk page), I propose to implement that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, the thread appears a little tattered. I mean Sylviecyn's proposal: 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 Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1] He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and 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 leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9] She, Little Olive and I agreed on that. Your proposal has been vaporized by the RfC, hasn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with that proposed edit, for the reasons explained in my older proposal (brought back to this current talk page above), and in part also for the recent RfC being closed on a "no change" for the first sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Wasn't it your older proposal that was rejected, including its reasons, and the RfC closed with that, not with "no change", as you twist it now. After that came Sylviecyn's proposal, with a rare and precious agreement by her (opponent), me (supporter) and LittleOlive (neutral). What is your agenda? That POV lede paragraph has been there for much too long, and you should not obstruct an overdue improvement, that has been achieved in painstaking collaboration.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the older proposal, as copied above received no further comments after I had answered Syliecyn's initial reserve, see above, which seems like "nobody objects" to the ammended proposal to me. At least up till now, and including Rainer P.'s last comment, nobody has given any *reason* why it wouldn't be a good idea.

That is the proposal "regarding third sentence of lede (and possible additional section on movements/organizations)" (as the title of this subsection has it).

Regarding first sentence of the lede: no change per recent RfC.

Regarding fourth sentence of the lede: for now I oppose any change to that sentence (and its references), and would only discuss it again once agreement on the third sentence has been reached. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'nobody objects' is just your perception of 'nobody can find it'. Anyway, as we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal, I feel we should go on.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "nobody can find it" — nonsense;

Re. "we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal" — we haven't, for the third or fourth (or is it fifth?) time in this talk page section, see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm getting too old for such a high-handed communication style. It seems, that you're the only one opposing Sylviecyn's proposal, and you have a very round-about and wearing manner of arguing.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) Let me ask again: is there any *rationale* why my proposal above should not be implemented? Above I have given my rationale why it should be implemented. Is there anything wrong with that rationale? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of Sylviecyn or Rainer. Though I would mention "...was considered in the seventies (or "and eighties") as a... --PremieLover (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

would anybody answer Francis question about his rationale please? Otherwise i would oppose! Surdas (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Francis, please kindly repeat or point directly to your proposal, incl. *rationale*, I'm getting lost in this thread. Must be old age.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your signpost, Francis, but really, I am the only one who can't make sense out of it? Can somebody simply show me, what that proposal was? I feel like I'm being given the roundabout again.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[7] --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of cutting up this discussion with older discussions (which is confusing and doesn't flow with the current discussions) I suggest we continue to discuss my proposal above. I don't believe it's against Wiki rules for an editor to change one's mind as I did. But, we have reached agreement and consensus, so I propose we come to a decision about the lede's first paragraph soon. My understanding of the Rfc is that they did not agree with Francis' proposal to change the lede's first sentence (the one I originally agreed with with all the honorifics), but I don't find anywhere in the Rfc where they said we should not edit the lede. Therefore, I invite Francis to make a counter proposal on mine, otherwise, at this point I think we have consensus to make the change soon. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no "agreement and consensus". My proposal is above (prior proposal, counterproposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All I can find is: 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)" ,

and I still agree. I also agree with Sylviecyn's proposal, deleting Balyogeshwar and 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 leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9] These are not much in contradiction and it can be combined: 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. Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1]. He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). These could be the first three sentences, nice and short. I agree with Olive and Francis, that DLM should not be used as a coatrack for introducing the cult-word in such a pushy and apodictic manner. The criticism-sentence should be reviewed (e.g. footnote Nr. 9 (Stephen Hunt) doesn't support what is being said before) and moved to a place behind descriptive content.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3rd & 4th sentence options

Option 0 (keep as is)

He came to early 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 and in anti-cult writings.

Option 1 (Francis)

He came to early 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 and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

Option 2 (Sylviecyn)

He came to early 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 and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early 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.

Option 3 (Rainer P)

He came to early 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 and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM).

References

Discussion

• Option 1 — remove the long unreferenced sentence part that is about one of the organizations, but not about the person. This is a biographical article, so shouldn't give details about perception of the organizations in the lede. There are currently two separate articles about the organizations (if these were conflated with the biography of the person the lede would be different, but they aren't, they are in separate articles, one of which has this "perception of DLM" sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, with a reference)

So should be removed from lede per unreferenced and per inappropriate for this article. It is also inappropriate in the lede of this article while DLM has been, over the complete period it has been named thus, not always and/or not completely under Rawat's remit, as has been established multiple times. So, saying something in general about an organization the subject of this biography is only partially responsible for, is misleading.

There isn't much difference between options 2 and 3 as far as I'm concerned, because if option 2 is chosen, eventually the inappropriate part discussing the perception of the movement needs to be removed (there really isn't much choice there: it is inappropriate in the lede of this article per Wikipedia's commitment to high standards).

Thus I would do (as I always said): [a] Take this step by step (not trying to do too much at once); [b] proceed now with what has been called "step 2" in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2, or "option 1" above, and take it from there once that step has been taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying it out so clearly (option 4 is probably meant to be option 3). I could go along with option 1, but it needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.

Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I choose Option 1, agreeing with Francis' logic that the previous sentence isn't referenced, and because the article is about Rawat, not the organizations. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

i go with option 1 as well Surdas (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New section on organizations

Above I wrote:

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...)

Can we explore that possibility further? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. We should be careful though, that the whole thing won't spacewise heel toward the amply sourced, but really obsolete DLM stuff of days gone by, at the expense of important modern developments. In that also stale items like the " Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" (Media-section) could be revised. A short naming and characterization of each org should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My stab at this:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

Rawat inherited the first organization he was associated with (Divine Light Mission) from his father. Moving away from the trappings of Indian culture and religion, he later established Elan Vital and Words of Peace International, independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles, and not bound to the traditions of India. The more recent organizations, like also The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) founded in 2001, add more focus to humanitarian efforts.

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

The Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad; DLM) was an organization founded in 1960 by guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj for his following in northern India. During the 1970s, the DLM gained prominence in the West under the leadership of his fourth and youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). Some scholars noted the influence of the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, but the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion. DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion.

===Elan Vital and Words of Peace International===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

DLM was disbanded when Prem Rawat renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, making his teachings independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles. The DLM in the United States changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change. Elan Vital became the name shared by several organizations supporting the work of Rawat. Independent Elan Vital organizations in several countries engaged in raising funds, organising speaking engagements by Rawat and in some cases broadcast his public addresses. Elan Vital no longer connected to its originally Hindu or Sikh religious background. Elan Vital, Inc. in the U.S. is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It has been labelled a "church" in reference to its tax status. Its 2005 articles of incorporation described its purpose as performing "religious, charitable and educational activities". The Elan Vital website states that Elan Vital ceased operations in 2010, and has been succeeded by new entities such as Words of Peace International, Inc.

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

In 2001, Rawat founded The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas.

The Peace Education Programme (PEP), founded by TPRF, is a media-based educational programme that helps participants explore the possibility of personal peace, and to discover personal resources — tools for living such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope. The programme, not only successful in some educational institutions, had by 2012 also been adopted by 28 prisons in 10 countries including the United States, South Africa, India, Spain, Ireland and Australia. The voluntary based programme takes inmates onto a unique route of rehabilitation involving self-discovery, and hopes of a fulfilled life, within or without the prison walls.

Re. Rainer's comments:

• As you can see this allows to tell something more about the recent developments, the two older organizations already have their separate article (I borrowed from the intros of these articles for their respective descriptions above).
• (for the Wikipedia technique used to write this section, see Wikipedia:Summary style — if you're interested in such technicalities)
• Media section: not the topic of this talk page subsection

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

References

My straightaway impression is (without looking at all the sources thoroughly, that can wait), your proposal is pleasantly informative and neutral. Where would you place it in the article? Perhaps in front of the Reception-section?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Above I said (second line under subsection title) "...new section under the teachings section", which is indeed the same as "...in front of the Reception-section" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have overlooked that. So we agree on that, too.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to mention the 'Food for People' program in the TPRF-paragraph, along with the Peace Education Program, as these two seem to constitute the organisation's crown jewels. There are presently three facilities, namely in India, Nepal and Ghana. Here are secondary sources I have found (of course there are a lot of more detailed primary sources, but I'm not sure if we can use them): http://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-prem-rawat-foundation-launches-food-people-dhading (Nepal and India) and http://www.goodnesstv.org/en/ (Ghana)--Rainer P. (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that the sources for these proposed changes/additions are from self-published and primary sources only. That makes this proposal original research, imo. The Malaysian Times piece reads like a standard Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) press release with advertisements for Rawat and TPRF. The same goes for the "Relief Web" piece. The link to "Goodness TV" brings you to the main page with nothing about Rawat on it. A search of Prem Rawat on "Goodness TV" gives a list of TPRF-produced videos that are described in French. Where are the secondary sources for introducing these newer organizations and programs? I can't agree with creating a new section titled "Organizations" and expanding on TPRF's programs without secondary sources. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In WP:Primary sources it says: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 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 in my understanding these sources, even if they are primary, do allow us to state that there are these organisations in a descriptive way, but no interpretations or judgements. It is not OR either, as any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge can confirm. So, as far as Francis's proposal is strictly descriptive, it is sufficiently covered by these sources. In case of doubt WP:RS-Noticeboard should be consulted.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Rainer P.'s quote of the WP:PRIMARY policy, such content would also be covered by the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy. Further, also the WP:BALASPS policy mandates such content.

Further, from the nine sources given for this proposed addition about half are neither primary nor self-published, so Sylviecyn's "the sources for these proposed changes/additions are from self-published and primary sources only" is factually incorrect.

So,

• @Sylviecyn: I'd invite you to revisit your position on this;
• @Rainer P.: I'd invite you to find stronger sources (in order to make a stronger argument for this section), and/or leave out/rewrite/update some of its content if it would be unbalanced (the better a good balance can be achieved in the proposal, the more chance it will find broader approval)

& everyone (also those who haven't contributed/commented on this) to do likewise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, what do you mean: unbalanced? Is there actually an opposing view, that these organizations do not really exist? I think the point is strong enough, but I'll keep looking anyway.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant "balanced" in the meaning of the last policy section I linked to above, WP:BALASPS, or "Balancing aspects" as that policy section is named. I know, when I provide a policy link on this talk page it is somewhat unwieldy to expect others to actually click that link when it is unclear what concept I'm referring to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how mentioning PEP and FFP are "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article subject" in this article, that carries so much irrelevant info. So, here are some more sources for the PEP, two of which wre obviously independent.

http://utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html

http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of.../

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb562810.htm--Rainer P. (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Balancing fourth sentence of the intro

Copying part of a conversation above:

(The fourth sentence of the intro) needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.

Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that my agreement with the previous sentence is provisional, depending on a balancing amendment.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I may assume consensus over "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later also been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace." and make the edit.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. There's no "double 'cult'-spell" preceding it any more, unreferenced, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the kind of conditions you're throwing in "I'll pretend I don't like something else if I can't force this one" is a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[3][4] and in anti-cult writings.[5][6] He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[7][8] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[9][10] are very biased (and awkward) statements, unless balanced with an equally sourced complementary view, as actually is the case in the article, don't you agree? Maybe you can come up with a better suggestion than mine, but we cannot just leave it like this, as it does not represent the more balanced article content. The preceding sentences do not pertain to Rawat's reception and do therefore not provide somehow balance in advance.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Afaics the last prior discussion about this is at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 46#General view of him as cult leader. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Second sentence of lede

Retrieving something from the archive regarding the second sentence of the lede:

---

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.

References

(...)

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)

---

→ Something to proceed with? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it, too. That way there is an informational statement before criticism, the way it should be.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, went ahead with this one. Can I go ahead with the proposal in #New section on organizations too? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove "see also" section?

Unless someone objects I'd remove the "see also" section (Prem Rawat#See also) which doesn't really serve a purpose any more imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Touring activities

In the lede: Rawat toured extensively in the 80s and 90s is taken almost verbatim from the first sentence of the '1983-Present'-section. It is misleading already in that section, in so far as Rawat has traveled extensively before and the more after that time. This emerges from the context of the section, where several international tours are mentioned explicitely, and needs not be sourced seperately. Stating that he toured 'in the 80s and 90s' evokes the notion that he stopped doing so after 2000, which he obviously did not. So at the head of the section it should read: Rawat has been touring extensively, or something analogue, and that should also replace the corresponding sentence in the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change the first sentence of the 1983-Present section into: Throughout this period, Rawat has toured extensively. In one two-year period he spoke at over 100 programs in 37 international cities, including New York, London, Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Rome, Delhi, Sydney, Tokyo, Caracas and Los Angeles.

Correspondingly for the lead, how about: "From 1980 to the present, Rawat has continued to travel extensively."--Rainer P. (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Assuming consensus, I made the edit.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't "assume consensus" in the future, therefore please don't make article edits without consensus. I cannot find where Björkqvist discusses Rawat's touring activities (the Björkqvist paper was published in 1990) and the same goes for Hinduism Today, which is dated 1983. What are your sources for Rawat's touring extensively from 1983 to the present? Sylviecyn (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, almost the entire section deals with Rawat's tours, so please save us the trouble quoting it here, it's all there, dates and all. As he can hardly stay at home in the U.S. while he's traveling, there can be no doubt that he has not stopped touring in 2000. Do you seriously want to contest this?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of sources for the 1983-Presesnt section are primary sources, TPRF press releases, and links to Rawat supported sites. Did you even look at the two sources at the end of the sentence that you just changed? Neither of them say one word about Rawat's touring, so that is misleading in itself. One cannot write a Wiki BLP article based on only original research, online publications, and primary sources. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, those two sources don't seem to be very useful, and as a matter of fact, have not been before. I suggest deleting them. The other sources in the section are partly primary and have been discussed and admitted before, and partly secondary. For the statement I have edited, namely the simple fact that he has been traveling a lot, I think even primary sources are sufficient. The statement is predicated on what is being mentioned in the following section, where details are amply sourced, and does not really need extra sourcing, in my understanding. Also, I have occasionally found it helpful to engage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard in such questions, perhaps you may want to take it there and keep us informed, it is quite simple, and will help consensus-finding.

I suggest we may assume consensus, when a proposal is not objected against for maximum a week. Otherwise the editing process might be disrupted, like e.g. on this page several discussions have been archived, before a solution was reached, even after Francis had extended the deadline; makes work unnecessarily difficult. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with a one-week cut off period where you would consider it an automatic consensus (allowing you to make an edit) due to lack of comments and/or objections to your proposal(s). There's no Wiki policy that allows for that (that I can find). Especially on this article, which is governed by ARBCOM and BLP restrictions, there's no reason to set time limits on other editors. Moreover, I don't see any urgency about this article that would cause you to be making edits without first having discussions/consensus on this page. Btw, you can bring the archived discussions forward here in order to revisit the issues that were not resolved prior to being archived. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, still I would like to know neutral editors' views on this. It's really confusing to continue archived discussions, and could be avoided by deadlining opposition to proposals, especially when there has not been any. I would not expect an explicit statement of consensus from everybody, would I? I think that would mean overstretching the idea of consensus. Please feel invited to help and formulate the problem for submission to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

i am sorry, but the idea of having concensus, because nobody has time to respond, shows to me that there must be a complete lack of understanding what concensus really means. gosh that's really far away Surdas (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually no. Per WP, a lack of participation equals implied agreement. So it is acceptable for an editor to wait a period of time than add content if there is no consensus on objection or input. What that time period is is not fixed and can vary. Its also acceptable for content to be reverted after discussion as to why it is not acceptable content remembering that peremptory deletion of sourced content falls under discretionary sanctions. Probably the most collaborative position is to discuss the content if there is reason to remove it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

well i understand, it's a policy not a consensus. Otherwise we would have to redefine language (and logic) Surdas (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

TV interviews (continuing from archive #52)

I intend to add a sentence to the 'Media'-section, like: In the 21st century, Rawat gave some TV-interviews, and use a primary source like This , which is admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos'). One or the other interview can also be referenced to a secondary source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYGhnChLT0) and (http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12), perhaps more.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)--Rainer P. (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are specific guidelines concerning external links to videos, including Youtube. There may be issues with copyright use of the videos, such as from Willa Television and Macroview TV, as well as the question of inserting user-generated content. Please check out the following links: WP:YT, WP:VIDEOLINK, and WP:User-generated content. Linking these and other videos seems to be too much like advertisements because the videos themselves don't explain your point of adding them, which is that you want to confirm that Rawat has been interviewed by the media in the 21st century. They are just videos that standalone without explanation. I don't see how your proposal is encyclopedic if you don't have secondary sources saying that Rawat has given interviews in the 21st century. This is original research, imo. And, since this is your proposal, it is incumbent upon you to go to the WP:RSN if you disagree. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I already did that in November 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#YouTube-videos, they say no problem. So, if there are no further substantial objections, I will at last add it.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. It would have been easier for me to understand your post if you had made a link to the RS noticeboard from November. I couldn't find it. I hadn't remembered it because the discussion was archived, and this past month has been nothing but flu for me, and flu and pneumonia for my husband that resulted in a week-long hospital stay for him. Sorry for being so foggy.  :) Given that you linked to Rawat's personal page where his interviews are located, I would say your edit will put this issue to rest, without any need to add more links to that sentence. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan Outlook interview, reprise

I'ld like to finally carry on with my proposal from Nov. 9, 2014, now in archive #52:

"On the subject of criticism, Rawat made the following comments on a Taiwan News channel: "“So far I’m concerned, my focus in life is not to appease critics, but is to bring the message of peace to people. […] When you’ve been doing what I have been doing for 5 decades plus, yes you’re gonna get critics. […] People said, “He’s going to fade away.” Well, how about fifty-two years. And I’m still doing strong, because it is about my conviction. And my conviction is “peace is possible”. And I will do everything that I must do, because it’s important to me that people find that peace in their life. ”, and source it with http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12, from 21:00 on. Inquiry at RS-noticeboard says it's o.k.(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#Taiwan_Outlook.2C_4th_trial) There has been no substantial objection then, and if there is none now, I'ld place it in the 'media'-section after ...gave some TV-interviews, and move the Cagan-sentence after it, for readability.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a date on that interview? I can never seem to find dates on any of his interviews or clips. Obviously it's recent because he looks so old. I have no objection to your edit, but be sure you make a link to the video showing the 21:00 time where Rawat begins discussing criticism. I would revise the sentence to the following: "Rawat made the following comments on the subject of criticism during an interview on a Taiwan News channel, "insert the quote." It's more active and direct. I hope you're well. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I made the edit and added a link to validate the date. Hope Vermont will see spring soon!--Rainer P. (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional reference for Brand Award

The Star is Malaysia's best-selling English newspaper with a daily readership of over a million. SwitchUp.tv is a webTV under The Star Publications. I'd like to add a clip from their YouTube-channel as secondary source for Rawat's Brand Laureate award: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJdEa1TTF8. RS Noticeboard (March 10, 2015, "SwitchUp - YouTube Clip") sees no problem. Any objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What precisely are you going to write and where in the article do you intend to place it? Please provide your proposed text for this edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No additional text. Just a reference.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple question

Why does this article cite Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes for the assertion that Rawat is a 'cult leade'. Are these the only sources available, the best ones we have, or just thrown in for comedy value? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the lede:

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

References

1. as you can see, four references, not two
2. More journalistic references at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of
3. As for the "book" references Larson and Rhodes are the most direct, meaning "cult leader" in one expression: there are quite some other sources speaking about the organization(s) and/or movement being perceived as a cult and/or Rawat being their explicit and/or de facto leader (which is an area of contention too), but Larson and Rhodes can be quoted without needing to bring together different places in the same or similar sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we aren't going to cite Larson or Rhodes as 'popular press' - the question is why they are being cited regarding 'anti-cult writings'? I'm sure they are 'direct', but how does that make their opinions more valid? And come to that, on what basis are these two regarded as valid sources in the first place? Would we cite the marketing director of Coca Cola for an assertion that Pepsi rots your teeth? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not 'more' valid. They are 'valid' in a core content policy approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And on what basis has it been determined that Larson and Rhodes are reliable sources on cults? Do they have academic qualifications relevant to the subject matter? Are their works on the subject cited by academics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(e.c.) AFAIK sources listed at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of (inclucing Rhodes and Larson) are only kept there if there's a possibility to use them as a WP:RS. Most of these sources have been discussed w.r.t. their reliability (although I'm not sure where and when for these two in the over fifty pages of archives and source listings...). Anyhow, if their reliability in this context is doubted, WP:RSN seems a better venue to discuss this imho. Larson came up there already in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Scholar writing about his own faith group and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Use of self-published sources in Rick Ross (consultant)#Branch Davidians, and Rhodes for instance in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 7#New World Translation Sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, on the subject of core policies, how is citing the opinions of two Christian Evangelist authors on the same topic while citing nobody else compatible with "representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias"? Either other people will have significant views, and need to be cited for balance, or they don't, and it isn't 'proportional'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about these checks and balances in a WP:BALASPS approach are ongoing, see other sections above on this page (as it happens, #Balancing fourth sentence of the intro). I think new input there would be welcome (but would not start the discussion on the same in this new talk page section). That would also be far beyond a 'simple' question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems a simple enough question to me. The article prominently cites two authors from a competing faith regarding the 'cult' status of a religious leader. Neither of which appear to have any academic credentials, and both of whom seem to make a living by denouncing anyone and anything they see as incompatible with their own belief systems. If that is 'balance', I must have fallen through a wormhole into a parallel universe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, when having anything to contribute on the topic, which would be welcomed, please do so at #Balancing fourth sentence of the intro, in order to avoid fragmentation of the discussion. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I see little reason to get dragged into a long-winded discussion over content which is so self-evidently in violation of core Wikipedia policy. This is, after all a BLP, and we are expressly told to "document in a non-partisan manner", and not to "give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Which doesn't appear compatible with using this partisan double act as the sole sources on the supposed cult status of Rawat. If there is a policy reason why I shouldn't just delete it per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:THISISNTCONSERVAPEDIAANDYOUDONTHAVETOBEACHRISTIANFUNDAMENTALISTTOHAVEANOPINION, I can't think of one off the top of my head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus is to keep it in per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. — WP:CCC is a valid approach, but I don't see that happening without proper discussion. Tx for the interest in the topic anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus cannot overrule policy, and it cannot be 'per' something it flagrantly disregards. I am going to try (if rampant insomnia permits) to get a few hours sleep. After which, unless I have had a change of heart, I will remove the policy-violating material. It will of course be open to others to then replace it with properly-sourced and non-partisan material on the cult status of Rawat, or indeed to argue for the existing content at WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN and the rest, if anyone seriously thinks that is going to fly. Meanwhile, you might like to contemplate the words of the person responsible for first adding this material into the lede: [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The material is not policy-violating afaics. Don't forget WP:CONSENSUS being policy too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges. WP:CONSENSUS is an editorial, decision making policy and should not override common sense application of a content policy when it comes to content especially on a BLP. The cult material was added by Jimbo Wales immediately following the application of a possibly unwarranted AE sanction on three editors [9]. I had been working on the talk page at that time and was surprised and shocked at the sanction which followed on the heels of a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I felt the editors in question were either blameless or had made great strides in coping with the talk page environment. That progress was ignored. I don't believe there was prior agreement for Jimbo's inclusion. If there was discussion after that, consensus would have been reached with the absence of those three, regular-to-the-page editors.

Academics in NRM like Chryssides tend to not use the word cult since it is implicitly pejorative and carries multiple meanings dependent on who is using it. It just doesn't tell the reader anything except that a label has been applied. There are better ways of describing Rawat that are more descriptive and in depth. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Its quite possible Jimbo did not remember adding this. I certainly don't remember everything I've ever added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

• FYI: Chryssides on NRM with some ref to cult as pejorative per discussion on "implied pejorative" [10] (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

(outdent) Prem Rawat is not a religious leader. He has always claimed that he does not teach any religious doctrine, and makes the same claims to this day. So let's take that misconception off the table. Is it Wiki policy for editors to make judgment calls about a source's own religious beliefs, as "AndytheGrump" is now doing with Larson and Rhodes? Would we do the same judgment calls on a Jew or Muslim source who may write about cults or NRMs? Please don't make any changes to the text of the lede or body of this article without first reaching concensus. It's an article about the man's whole life, not just the past ten or twelve years. While Wikipedia is skittish about the term "cult," it is absolutely not "implicitly pejorative," as Oliveoil says, nor does the term carry multiple meanings. There's plenty of literature, from academic sources and from the press that back up the claim that Prem Rawat is a cult leader. To take that out of the lede is tantamount to whitewashing the article to make Rawat look like he's like he recently jetted onto the world scene with his brand new whitewashed teachings (No demands for devotion to himself teachings), in the year 2000! It's still a mystery what the meaning is and significance of the new Rawat a/k/a title, "Ambassador of Peace." The source material for that title comes directly from Rawat's own supporting organizations, in the form of Rawat websites and press releases, and a couple of news sources that read exactly like TRPF (The Prem Rawat Foundation) press releases. This article is now becoming a Prem Rawat sponsored public relations puff piece. The majority of source material that gives Rawat the notability to even warrant a BLP on Wiki, come from sources that cover the DLM/EV 1970s and early 80s time periods, when Rawat had his largest following of devotees. Search the archives, get familiar with this subject and the sources well enough before changing the lede so abruptly and without concensus. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If "There's plenty of literature, from academic sources and from the press that back up the claim that Prem Rawat is a cult leader" then cite the academic sources. Problem solved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The material needs to be removed and restored only if satisfactory sources are found, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The lede is also poorly written, and quite confusing. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Having again looked through this talk page with some care, I have to say that I see little evidence for any 'consensus' regarding the existing lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The consensus that needs to be found is for inclusion, not the other way around. Please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first . - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 46#General view of him as cult leader --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously bringing up a 2011 discussion as a claim for consensus? A lot of water has gone under the bridge since, including the tightening of WP:BLP. You need to heed the advice of editors, and comply with WP:BLP, as suggested by AndyTheGrump. Edit warring is not a solution for an BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What water over what bridge? The passage of 4 years dossn't make the WP:RS discussed in that thread no longer RS e.g. [11] and David Adams Leeming; Kathryn Wood Madden; Stanton Marlan (September 2009). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Springer. p. 274. ISBN 9780387718019. Retrieved 3 February 2011. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As an illustration of the problems with the (now removed) citations take a look at what Rhodes was actually being cited for: 'Ron Enroth has noted that the authoritarian nature of cult leaders is often evident in their titles. Examples include "Guru Ma" (Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the Church Universal Triumphant), "Perfect Master" (Guru Maharaj Ji), "Father David" (late leader of the Children of God), and "True Parent" (Reverand Moon, who heads the Unificaction Church).' Rhodes is being cited for repeating someone else's observation regarding Rawat's former title, nothing more. He provides no evidence concerning Rawat's supposed authoritarianism at all, or indeed, says anything else about him in the passage cited. This is a second-hand observation, made in passing, made in a book by an author who makes it entirely clear in the introduction that his objective is to provide assistance to cult members to "transfer allegience to the one true God of whom Scripture speaks" (p. 15). Rhodes, it should also be noted also classifies Jehovah's Witnesses as a 'cult', along with Mormons and Christian Scientists. This is not an objective analysis of Rawat. It is apparently not even an analysis of Rewat at all - it is a prostelysing hatchet-job on anyone that Rhodes sees as incompatible with his own fundamentalist doctrines.

And as for other sources on Rawat, they aren't what this thread was about - the fact that Larson and Rhodes, both of which are clearly partisan, and neither of which appear to have any relevant academic credentials, were being cited so prominently for their opinions. If there are better sources, we can of course discuss using them. But meanwhile, NPOV policy requires balance and weight, not a narrow-minded Christian Fundamentalist double act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Francis Schonken has re-added these sources, twice now: [12], [13], in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Obviously a WP:OWN issue here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Leeming source may be used about the divine mission being "thought to be a cult" in the 70s and 80s, but that is not what this thread is about. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I read that 2011 thread and I don't see much of a consensus there, and in any case, WP:CCC, as it must be obvious by now. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly WP:OWN seems to be coming into play here - in an article covered by discretionary sanctions. I would have to suggest that Francis Schonken might do well to self-revert, given the clear evidence so far provided that the article fails to adhere to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken‎ may have not been aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions. He is now on notice: [14]. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken was presumably already aware that this article was under discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, having participated in the original case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

huuh? Obviously a pro NRM fraction has rushed in here turning this article into a TPRF pamphlet. I won't engage into this anymore because this is way below of what you can expect from an encyclopedic article. I am sorry. A Kasperle theater this is. Surdas (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am neither 'pro NRM' (I am an atheist), and nor am I trying to turn this into a TPRF leaflet (I had to read the article again to check what 'TPRF' meant). I am however pro-Wikipedia-policy, and accordingly opposed to highly-questionable partisan sources being used in an article lede to characterise an individual in the manner done here. And am somewhat puzzled as to why anyone could have thought it either appropriate in the first place, or even necessary if (as has been claimed, and I have no particular reason to doubt) there are credible academic sources which state much the same thing, in perhaps more temperate terms. It appears that this article has been the locus of a long-term tug-of-war between competing factions, and that a 'consensus' of sorts has been arrived at where alternate sentences state that the Sun shines out of Rawat's fundament, and that he is Old Nick's terrestrial emissary. And that, I have to suggest, is not what readers should expect in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there not a compromise in retaining the cult point but with different and better sources? DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There may possibly be. That was (as far as I'm concerned) not what this thread was about. I asked a simple question regarding clearly-inappropriate material in the lede, and said material has now been removed. As to what if anything should replace it, I would suggest that any discussion should start with an assessment of what recent academic sources have to say on the subject, given that they appear to exist, and are per Wikipedia policy the best material on which to base content. If the general consensus amongst such sources supports the 'cult' characterisation, then the article can clearly include words to that effect. Or if there is no consensus, we can indicate that there are differing opinions, as WP:WEIGHT requires. What we must not do however is assume that because 'cult' has been removed through poor sourcing, 'balance' automatically requires that it be put back in again with new sources. Collate the evidence, assess the sources, and then determine the content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Added Lemmings' source suggested by DeCausa to the 70-80s section. 15:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis, I am glad to hear you say above, that Discussions about these checks and balances in a WP:BALASPS approach are ongoing, see other sections above on this page. I was not really sure about that, because so much time is passing over several efforts from my side to reach consensus, and they all seem to more or less peter out into space. I have been working on suggesting a solution for the cult-sentence, which is finally, perhaps inadvertently addressed in this recent discussion (BTW I did not dismiss mentioning the 'cult'-bit in the lede, if embedded in a sensible context. So, no need to pull out the deus-ex-machina). I had made a proposal to mention the TV-interviews in the media-section, could not get 'consensus', i.e. your consent. I offered to collaborate on a formulation for an RfC on the cult-bit, waiting still for reaction. I suggested a small reasonable change in the infobox (Ambassador 'of' Peace instead Ambassador 'for' Peace), no reaction. I asked for suggestions how to accelerate the slacking editing process, got no answer. If you look at the timeline, you can hardly accuse me of being impatient. I accept that it may all just be a little too much for a single editor's shoulders, so I really appreciate the chance for collaboration with some new uninterested voices, as you yourself have wished for several times.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW I like your addition of the 'Organizations'-section.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw your link #114 (Elan-Vital-website) leads to a roof-repair company. Symbolic?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that criticism of Rawat as carried by mainstream, in this case academic sources, and per weight must be included in this article. As I said above, single word descriptions seem to me to be lazy thinking and lazy scholarship and I would always prefer context and explanation, but that is a subjective view for sure.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

Media

Was there a problem with:

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports.

References

? In the lede? In the "Reception" section? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess there has been a problem with weight and balance in Rawat's public representation, and with the quality of sources for the cult-bit (Larson; Rhodes). I don't know why it seems so hard to bear that there has been a shift from the early sensationalistic reporting style to more differentiated views and growing recognition in the later years, even in public media (in scolarly publications, anyway). So, IMO if we can develop a well-sourced, balanced statement for the hitherto insufficient media sectio, that should go into the lede, too.

BTW, talking about the media section, discussions of the points "TV-interviews" and "Taiwan-Outlook-Interview" have meanwhile been archived without solution. Can we work on an agreement over those?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But no problem with the "cult leader" perception as historically relevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree on that. I also share AndyTheGrump's view, that this point should be flawlessly sourced, as it may be contentious.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And, being essentially derogatory, it must not stand alone in a prime position in the lede, but be balanced right away by a mitigating statement, as I have been repeatedly proposing for some while now.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It could reasonably go after ...and for leading an opulent lifestyle.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source for Rawat's opulent lifestyle from the Courier Mail in 2012: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/guru-and-devotees-jet-in-for-a-queensland-love-in/story-e6freoof-1226473718432?nk=ae65a8344e3aed0b5d74118289e6eff7. I think that there is ample sourcing to include Prem Rawat as a leader of a cult. I'm concerned that you are relying too much upon current Rawat-supporting websites and original research. I apologize for not being more involved here recently. Personal circumstances in the past month or two have taken my full attention at home. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, what statement would you support with this thing? Outside of a malicious, titillating and gossipy tone it's not even explicitely critical concerning lifestyle or anything, nor does it call him a cult leader. It could perhaps be used to source his traveling about after 2000, and for still dubbing him 'guru' decades after he discarded that title, but that is not really needed. It might serve as an example for the superficial and tenacious style the public media have been dealing with the subject, and a rather late one, too. Our article does not deny that. I suggest you submit it to the RS:NB and find out their opinion, what it can be used for. Best wishes for your personal circumstances!--Rainer P. (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, as you are worried over the dignity of sources, this is the Brisbane Courier Mail, and it seems to be typical for this kind of tabloid, quite the environment where you would expect an article like the one you cited (there's more of this, if you are interested). I don't think it meets WP's requirements for secondary sources on BLPs or on anything, but I would accept an RS:NB commendation.

http://www.thenewspaperworks.com.au/furore-over-front-page-murder-report/

https://navigator.gmx.net/navigator/show?sid=f28ca89aa30ebba8cd0bbd2985922ef30d4aa449ee7dbb034ea7a2efa3ffd458e4818a0aca55350e15f7df243f2be025&tz=1#mail --Rainer P. (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Origin

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, and anti-cult writings.

References

• The above was introduced in the article here after a two month discussion that is archived here. In that discussion ample attention went to the reliability of the sources.
• Re. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE:
  • There's the 2008 consensus
  • There's the 2011 consensus
  • ...and there's nothing in the recent discussion that demonstrates that any existing consensus on this topic would have been toppled.

Repeatedly removing well-sourced article content that has an established consensus has nothing to do with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, imho it harms the encyclopedia while straying from WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and it has changed on the last discussions, including at Jimmy Wales page a while ago as you have noted. Note that this article in under discretionary sanctions, and you are aware of these already. I suggest you self-revert and bring this to a discussion at WP:BLP/N if you want to pursue an override to BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

'Ambassador of Peace' in 'Reception'

I suggest to place the following sentence after ...Andrea Cagan described Rawat as a man who loves life and is focused "on spreading the message of peace." in the Reception-section: From 2006 on Rawat has also been announced as 'speaker on/of peace' or 'Ambassador of Peace' in public media., and source it with http://www.provincia.potenza.it/provincia/detail.jsp?otype=1101&id=120788&sec=111375 http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of-peace-in-prison-2/ http://www.razor.tv/video/747624/ambassador-of-peace-honoured-at-peace-forum http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/bu/newsbusiness.php?id=1048435 http://www.qt.com.au/news/peace-descends-on-ipswich/2385058/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJdEa1TTF8 (speaker on peace)(0:05) http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12 (speaker of peace)(2:51)

The item is briefly mentioned before in the 1983-Present section (In 2009, Rawat was made "Ambassador of Peace" for the Basilicata region of Italy.), but that does not reflect on its impact on his public persona as being multiplied by the media, so it is relevant to have it in the Reception section. Objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Better: "From 2006 on Rawat has also been referred to as 'speaker on/of peace' or 'Ambassador of Peace' in public media."--Rainer P. (talk) 12:08,

"Ambassador of Peace" is already mentioned so I don't see the need to make another mention in the "reception" section, especially because some of the above-mentioned sources are already being used in the article. The whole article indicates quite clearly that Rawat teaches and speaks about peace. Your stated goal is to show that "public media" has had a larger impact on Rawat's "public persona," so I believe that you need a secondary source which specifically states what you are trying to convey -- in order to verify it. Also, you have listed way too many "sources" (citation overkill) for a one sentence statement that doesn't convey your intent. In other words, you need to find a verifable source by a scholar or mainstream media source that specifically states that Rawat is more notable as "Ambassador of Peace" and/or "Speaker of Peace." since 2006, rather than list a bunch of links. Let's discuss, or you can make a request for comment. Btw, if you do that, please indicate that here with a link. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree with you on citation overkill, but then you know the historic conditions for that in this case, when the overall notability of the title had been questioned. I collected those many sources to show that it has become an established denotation in the way Rawat is in recent years being trafficked in the media. That is an essentially different information than what is said in the article now, that he was made AoP for the Basilicata region. I don't think we need a tertiary source for this. BTW the cult-word appears three times in the article (once in Divine Light Mission, twice in 1974-1983), and you have not complained.

We might discuss though, in order to tauten the text, if we should make one edit out of the two separate AoP-mentions and place it into the Reception-section - stating that he was declared such by whom and when and where, and that it has become a current designation in the media, and make a short corresponding entry in the summary. When we will have agreed on a formulation, I will be pleased to let you pick two or three reasonable citations from the lot for the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and write a proposed edit as described above, sourced with as many secondary sources you can find. Btw, the word "cult" has been sourced throughout with reliable sources, so the same standard must be reached for the "AoP" insertions into the article. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

George Harrison?

His song, 'My Sweet Lord', supposedly about this character. If it can be sourced, it should go in the article.

The underground cartoonist, Robert Crumb, drew a parody of him once 'that fat kid is everywhere!' C. 1970-72. Possible link? I would add it, but someone has locked the article. 80.189.166.222 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Pledge to Peace

I'ld like to add a statement about the "Pledge to Peace" in Brussels 2011. After: In 2011, he spoke again in Brussels at the conference, "Peace and Prosperity. Founding Values of the European Union."[94] There he introduced the „Pledge to Peace“, which was signed by Rawat and Pittella as well es by delegates of public and private organisations. The signatories obligated themselves to report on their efforts for the promotion of peace at the annual international „Day of Peace“, held by the UN on September 21st.

Here's a collection of independent sources, of which we should maybe choose not more than three. What are fellow editors' opinions? http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/the-pledge.htmlhttp://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/ http://magazine.azsalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AZS-Mag2015-WEB.pdfhttp://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-ukhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-peace-prem-putnikovic?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/http://www.monrealepress.it/mp-palermo-i-medici-siciliani-firmano-il-pledge-to-peace-8001.asphttp://www.lasicilia.it/articolo/carceri-pagliarelli-di-palermo-sottoscrive-pledge-peace http://www.vivimazara.com/portale/eventi-e-appuntamenti/mazara_cm_-prem-rawat-ed-il-sindaco-cristaldi-rilanciano-il-messaggio-del-pledge-to-peace.htmlhttp://www.lasiritide.it/article.php?articolo=5043

--Rainer P. (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

None of your links work. Plus, they're all in Italian. This is the English wikipedia. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

i don't understand the motivation behind those activities anymore. Rawat clearly expressed in Brighton what he really thinks about this show.isn't there a mirror at home to look in? Well, this might not be the place to discuss the issue, i only want to express the bad feeling i get if you have to collaborate with somebody you know by now, that his ambitions with political peace engagements are not honest Surdas (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, I seem to have gotten the layout a bit tangeled. Hope this works better:

http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/the-pledge.html

http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/

http://magazine.azsalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AZS-Mag2015-WEB.pdf

http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-uk

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-peace-prem-putnikovic?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo

https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/

http://www.monrealepress.it/mp-palermo-i-medici-siciliani-firmano-il-pledge-to-peace-8001.asp

http://www.lasicilia.it/articolo/carceri-pagliarelli-di-palermo-sottoscrive-pledge-peace

http://www.vivimazara.com/portale/eventi-e-appuntamenti/mazara_cm_-prem-rawat-ed-il-sindaco-cristaldi-rilanciano-il-messaggio-del-pledge-to-peace.html

http://www.lasiritide.it/article.php?articolo=5043

Some sources are in English. This is what Wikipedia:Verifiability says about foreign languages in citations: Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. So, I would also prefer English sources, but quality is obviously decisive. If we can agree on an English source, we won't really need an Italian sources, and I suggest we might mention them under one footnote in order to attest notability.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And, Surdas, please read maybe again the headers on top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." And: "Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner."--Rainer P. (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the necessity of adding all of this when the current paragraph deals with the pledge to peace thing already. This is an article, not a laundry list of Rawat's yearly activities. Btw, the pledgetopeace.eu website has an ip address in San Francisco, California. Why the European suffix on the website address? 199.34.228.59 Also, the Italian articles may be fine according to you, but they should be translated so a determination can be made by English-speaking readers and for us editors, as well. Get a translation of the articles and then we can make informed decisions. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, where exactly does the current paragraph deal(s) with the pledge to peace thing already? I don't know about the Frisco IP, don't think it's relevant. And according to guidelines, translation is only required when a source is quoted in the article, which is not the case here. An interested reader can easily use online translation services, if their education does not suffice. Please don't make me work for the heck of it.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC) My idea was rather to find an agreement on which sources to use for the statement. There is certainly not a laundry list of all his activities here, otherwise the article would become a lot longer. For relevance: The pledge to Peace declaration happened four years ago, and it seems to be still productive and evolving, new signatories submitting. No reason to belittle it. If you feel unable to cooperate, I can take the trouble of getting the RS:NB's opinion, though I'ld prefer to reach a simple agreement.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not all that the guidelines say about foreign language sources. On the Wikipedia Attribution page WP:A it states:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves."

Please also read the guidelines in Wikipedia Verifiability sections WP:RSUE regarding translations of non-English sources. I don't read Italian, so there's no way I can determine what the articles say, and neither do many other English speaking people. I believe on Wikipedia, it's assumed if you provide a foreign language source, it's incombent upon the editor to find a translation. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines pertain to Citing non-English sources resp. Quoting non-English sources. I accept that. "To cite something means to do right by whoever said it and give them credit — for instance, if you add a brilliant statement to a paper but you’re not the one who originally wrote it, you should cite, or point to, the original author. A quote is a passage of speech or writing that’s repeated word for word." (from: vocabulary.com) I'm neither citing nor quoting those sources in the article, just naming them, so these rules don't apply. It would seem quite unreasonable, too, if they did, wouldn't it? Avoiding sources in an international resp. European context, just because they're not in English? If there were a Braille version of WP, would all sources have to be translated into Braille? I'm not insisting on using all those sources, but completely ignoring them because they're not English can't be seriously meant, not even in the U.S. Besides, there are English sources named (not quoted), also. Actually, we need only one, make a pick, and I will throw all the other ones out. But don't complain afterwards about laundry-listing insignificant activities.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I don't know how to read Italian. How do you propose that I assess those sources? I'm not trying to avoid them! I'm trying to figure out how to READ THEM! Any ideas? Do you know the Italian language? Sylviecyn (talk)

Only from vacations there, and passively from my knowledge of English, French and Latin. It is fairly easy to spot the passages in question in those sources, and the point is to show that the matter is mentioned there. For closer description the English sources will do.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have asked WP:RS/Noticeboard for their opinion, under "Pledge to Peace". Let's see what they have to say.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

PEP in U.K.

In section 'The Prem Rawat Foundation and others': "...including the United States, South Africa, India, Spain, Ireland and Australia." we can include the U.K., based on this source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/15/thameside-prison-privately-run-state-sector. The sentence then says: ...including the United States, South Africa, India, Spain, Ireland, the U.K. and Australia. Any objections?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding UK to that sentence based on the Guardian article. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope your holiday season has been happy.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I am unfamiliar with the subject, but why is this one man so controversial that discretionary sanctions were implemented just to regulate articles about him?— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Prem Rawat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506081453/http://charityreports.give.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=3098 to http://charityreports.give.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=3098
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424231024/http://www.agenziaaise.it/esteri/unione-europea/65024-.html to http://www.agenziaaise.it/esteri/unione-europea/65024-.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120302064146/http://www.basilicatanet.eu/news/print.asp?Id=734979 to http://www.basilicatanet.eu/news/print.asp?Id=734979
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714163432/http://www.razor.tv/video/747624/ambassador-of-peace-honoured-at-peace-forum to http://www.razor.tv/video/747624/ambassador-of-peace-honoured-at-peace-forum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206070040/http://www.dci.dk/index.php?view=article&catid=142&id=333&option=com_content&Itemid=36 to http://www.dci.dk/index.php?view=article&catid=142&id=333&option=com_content&Itemid=36
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627145415/http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/002geaves.pdf to http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/002geaves.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020334/http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/wim/divinelightmission.pdf to http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/wim/divinelightmission.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=280

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia certifies religious experiences now???

How is this sentence in the lede encyclopaedic?

“Many young adults took interest in the claim that Rawat could impart direct knowledge of God to his followers, and some experienced it.”

What citation do we have that proves knowledge of god was imparted? Utterly ridiculous and more like a Z-Class article. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's also not what the source said. Sentence repaired to reflect source and common sense. Maelefique^(talk) 17:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

Source of "The Keys" below right on this Prem Rawat page of information is going anywhere. Please, replace for example by: https://www.wopg.org/the-keys/ This link is right and working there. Thank you! Claudine Lacroix (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The archived version listed in the sources still exists in the original format, agreed, there's no reason to make any change at this time. Maelefique^(talk) 16:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Give it a thought

Since March 21, 2020, Prem Rawat publishes a daily message on its site to morally support people and help them get through the period of confinement as best as possible. In exceptional circumstances, an exceptional response. A good way to understand firsthand and without questionable intermediaries, the essence of its message and, perhaps, reconsider the content of the page that Wikipedia devotes to it.

As I don’t know exactly how to contact persons in charge of this page, I publish this message here. I hope, you don’t mind, and if you want to talk to me, I’m open to it. --Faunus (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Main picture

I would like to change the picture on top of the article, using a more recent picture taken in 2018 and authorized by Timeless Today. Here is the link to that picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prem_Rawat_Barcelone_2018_Cropped.jpg

I have done this change on the French Wiki Prem Rawat's page few months ago and it looks good. Do you have any objection to this small change which, at least, will update a little bit this page that is really concentrate on the early years (about 60% of the article) with an outdated vision of it? Thank you for the reply. Faunus (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything to be done on this page to make it acceptable?

Every time I visit this page, I’m thinking of what can be done to help it to evolved to something acceptable. Not perfect, just something that don’t hurt my common sense and intelligence.

Everything that is said here is convoluted. You take the first paragraph, it seems to be very serious and specific, but in reality, it is made to insist on the Indian origin of Prem Rawat, with a list of names no more used from decades or only in India. Why the tittle of Ambassador of peace, that has given to him many times and more representative of the recognition it has received, is not mention? What is the academic interest of a distorted vision of this man and its works? This is an example, but I can give many throughout the reading. The whole picture is corrupted, far from a neutral point of view, with old gossips without academic interest.

This year it will be the 50th anniversary of his arrival in the West at the young age of thirteen, ignorant of the western culture to which he had to adapt, just wanting to share his message of personal peace. A huge work he is still doing today with an enthusiasm intact, in despite of the echo of critiques that have their roots in a cultural misunderstanding that is largely obsolete today. Why Wikipedia is still giving only echo to that? Is this encyclopedia still trapped in the trial and error of its beginnings, which is the other side of this formidable mistake? I don't think so, in the overwhelming majority of quality articles that she produces regularly.

How to erase a stain on the beautiful edifice of the collaborative encyclopedia? If I can contribute a little bit, with the experience gained on French Wikipedia, I will feel honored. --Faunus (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose to synthesize the introduction of the article into a few salient points which are then developed in the body of the article. At least the reader in a hurry will have a glimpse of the essentials of what can be said about Prem Rawat, without getting lost in this unbalanced biography (the 70s represent 40% of the article) and which does not allow to understand the action and the course of this man. Below is a rewrite proposal. Please take this into account to improve at least the first few paragraphs that Internet users will read. Faunus (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

=== Proposition of new introduction ===

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, born 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as formerly Maharaji. 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.

Prem Rawat is the youngest son of Hans Ram Singh Rawat, an Indian guru and the founder of the Divya Sandesh Parishad (later known as Divine Light Mission, or DLM). After his father's death, eight-year-old Prem Rawat assumed his role. At age 13, he traveled to the West, soon taking up residence in the United States. Many young adults took interest in his message and the movement grew by tens of thousands. Many in the news media were perplexed by his youth and claims of divine status, and he was criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Prem Rawat's marriage at the age of 16 to a non-Indian severed his relationship with his mother. At that point, the Indian branch of DLM controlled by his mother split from DLM everywhere else (at that point it was established in 55 countries).

In the early 1980s, he began to discard direct references to religion in his speeches and closed the ashrams. The name of the DLM was changed to Elan Vital. From 1980 to the present, Prem Rawat has continued to travel extensively, speaking about peace to large and.

In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts. Its Peace Education Program is licensed and utilized by correctional facilities and other human service organizations around the world. Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday manages documentation, production and distribution of Prem Rawat’s talks and writings.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Please get consensus for the change before requesting the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Sorry, what do you mean? With who and how "get the consensus"? I'm not used with this process. It's the first time. Thanks --Faunus (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I ask here the question: Is there any objections to my request to rewrite the introduction, in order to correct its 2 main defects?

1) A priori cultural on the ethnic and cultural origins of PR.

2) An excessive importance granted to the 1970s and anecdotal events with regard to its action in the long term (more than 50 years). --Faunus (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the change is fine. The lead as is, especially in the second paragraph does not summarize. I'd wait for another week or so and if there are no responses against the change, I think the change would be fine. If your changes are challenged then a discussion should proceed until there is agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil How do you feel about making the change now? Thanks --Faunus (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you do it as you intended? --Faunus (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil I ask you because I don't know exactly who can make the change? I'm not familiar with this semi-protected process and I don't want to create an unnecessary problem. Thank you for your help. --Faunus (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

With reference to the previous section “Is there anything to be done on this page to make it acceptable?” in which a consensus was reached on March 20, 2021, to simplify the introduction of the page and rebalance its content, I thank in advance the person who will take charge of this welcome change. I recall the two main arguments:

- by highlighting many Hindu names not used outside India and some that have fallen into disuse.

- An excessive importance granted to the 1970s and anecdotal events with regard to its action in the long term (more than 50 years).

In order not to overload the talk page unnecessarily, the new intro is also available in my sandbox. --Faunus (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Faunus: You can make this edit yourself. You allowed time for responses. You have made more than 10 edits. I want to take break from Wikipedia, but I'll keep an eye on this in case some problem arises. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I thought I should have done at least ten edits on this Wikipedia. But if my experience on the French Wikipedia counts, I will be able to do it. Thanks --Faunus (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

New infobox

Insert non-formatted text here

I make a new proposal to improve the article by proposing an update to the infobox. In fact, the information is not always relevant, up-to-date and presented chronologically. The idea is to have a synthetic vision from the present to the past, a bit like in a curriculum vitae. Do not forget that we are in the presence of a living person with very rich news even if everything is not reported in the press. I have kept the major pieces over a period spanning 50 years since his arrival in the West and are documented in the article.

I have put this new version in my sandbox. Please let me know if you have any comments. --Faunus (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Prem Rawat. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Aasim (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is what I've done. But if you prefer, I will post here my change proposal. Best --Faunus (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made the changes in the infobox as nobody make a comment. --Faunus (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Prem Rawat/Archive 52
Prem Rawat in Barcelona, Spain in 2018
Born	Prem Pal Singh Rawat (1957-12-10) 10 December 1957 Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh,(now Uttarakhand), India
Other names	(Guru) Maharaji*
Occupation	Speaker
Years active	1966–present
Organizations	The Prem Rawat Foundation Words of Peace TimelessToday Elan Vital* Divine Light Mission*
Known for	Self-Knowledge Peace Education Program Pledge to Peace (European Parliament) Millennium (1973) Peace Bomb discourse (1970)
Spouse	Marolyn Rawat
Children	4
Parent(s)	Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Rajeshwari Devi
Relatives	Satpal Maharaj
Awards	Ambassador of Peace Brand Laureate Lifetime Achievement Award
Website	premrawat.com
Notes
* in early years

The case of the jewelry suitcase

Information that is 48 years old and proven to be false and has been excused by the government no longer deserves to be featured on this BLV. I suggest deleting this passage from “On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase…” to the end of the paragraph. --Faunus (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Establish an effective and respectful collaborative relationship to improve this page

Lawrencekhoo Francis Schonken I intervened on this page concerning the rules of a semi-protected page to avoid relaunching an editorial war, the unfortunate result of which is this biography that I am trying to improve. I note that this is a biography of a living person who should be better treated, as Wikipedia recommends.

So, I wonder why you intervened directly on the page by making important modifications? They all go in the direction of doubt on the probity of Prem Rawat, without first presenting here proposals for well-argued rewriting, as I took the trouble to do within a reasonable period of time to allow time for other writers to intervene. What is your objective in doing so?

I will therefore take each modification in order and comment on them to begin a dialogue. I hope it will be constructive and respectful of the rules and of the people (including the one that cannot intervene directly, namely the one whose reputation is being sullied here).

Lawrencekhoo, in the new introduction, which had been the subject of a previous agreement, you introduced the notion of “self-proclaimed spiritual leader”. You relied on an article concerning Devendra Banhart and not Prem Rawat, which is just quoted there with this qualifier at the end of a paragraph. It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. I recall that this controversy about his status dates back to the 70s to which this article gives pride of place (more than 60%). It is not the reflection of the image that PR has today. He still fills rooms and is regularly invited on the TV and radio media. He is never presented as you have stated, but rather often as an Ambassador for Peace (I can produce a number of links that attest to this). I therefore propose to remove this harmful unnecessary addition.

Francis Schonken, you take us by surprise by unbalancing the content of the infobox, always with the aim of emphasizing the 70s. This is a strategy to tarnish the reputation of a person: we exaggerate everything that has been said about him negatively and minimize the rest.

Let's take it in the order of the changes I disagree with:

1) Removal of TimelessToday: This factual information was agreed to in the Introduction to update its content. It doesn't need to be referenced. This site is one of the official PR organizations today and the largest library of videos. Insofar as this biography gives a large part to the organizations which underlie Prem Rawat's action (which is quite questionable because they are just means of action, not the heart of his action itself), it is normal to cite the main ones (present and past). I propose to reintroduce it in the two places where it appeared previously.

2) Removal of Speaker from the Occupation heading: According to you, this man has no known occupation, but does have a biography? Interesting as a point of view. I note that previously this section included the mention of Inspirational Speaker. I just wanted to make it more neutral, knowing that the speaker himself challenges it. On the other hand, it is his main activity (several hundred per year for almost 50 years!) That it is mentioned so little in the article is one of the many points which show how much this article is attached to highlighting the anecdotal aspects of his biography rather than what he is known and recognized for. I propose to reintroduce it.

3) Removal of Self-knowledge: I am quoting you: “seems nowhere near something the subject is widely known for”. This is indeed the case in this biography, and this is the problem because it is at the heart of his action and his message. Prem Rawat is indeed a speaker who talks about self-knowledge. I don't think you can find a single talk he has given about anything else. I propose to reintroduce it.

4) Deletion of "Ambassador of Peace": It would be badly sourced as you said. It is true that the one that is the most sourced is from Italy, but the title is regularly given to him, notably in the European Parliament on two occasions, in the Italian Senate, and widely today in the media. But in this particular case, you don't seem to be interested in how the media qualifies PR anymore. Why? I propose to reintroduce this title. That only makes two out of all the recognitions he has received elsewhere (honorary citizen, city key, etc.). We are not in excess, here.

5) Deletion of the Pledge to Peace: It is true that in the article this initiative is not very well highlighted. However, there are a number of articles which attest that it has been followed by commitments on the part of institutions and organizations. Here is a list: https://www.associazionepercorsi.com/en/pledge-to-peace-2/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/

Considering all the actions and programs not mentioned here (Food for People, action in prisons, KEYS, PEAK ...) having three recent and two old is not unbalanced. I note that I will remove the asterisks at Millenium and Peace Bomb because these references in early years concern appellations that have fallen into disuse, not events located far in the past. You would be surprised to see the many references that Prem himself makes to his past without denying it but recontextualizing it in the light of his experience acquired over the years. I propose to reintroduce Pledge to Peace.

I think that the small changes I had proposed were justified in view of the excessive focus on the early years of Prem Rawat's action in a particular context (cultural shift, youth of PR, rise of the hippie counterculture, originality of an approach never attempted at the global level). --Faunus (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Re.

1. needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, with a proper reference to a reliable source, before it can be summarized in the lead without reference: please propose such text and reference, and indicate where this text and reference can be posted in the body of the article. As for the infobox: only one external link (to the official website of the person) please. Meaning: TimelessToday can possibly be mentioned there, if significant and duly mentioned and referenced in the body of the article, but I suppose without a link.
2. Without this being mentioned in the body of the article, with a proper reference to a reliable source, this can not be summarized in the infobox. Please propose such text and reference for the body of the article (and where you think it should go), after which it can be assessed whether this is significant enough for the infobox.
3. propose text for this topic, and reference to a reliable source, and where you think this should go in the body of the article, after which it can be re-assessed whether it should be summarized in the infobox.
4. As summarized in the infobox it seemed, imho, to give undue weight to a quite local award. What I'm looking for is a reference to a reliable source indicating this is something the person is widely known for outside the region where this was awarded, and outside the sources controlled by Rawat and his organizations. If such information is contained in the body of the article, with a reference to such an external reliable source (which you can propose if you think this should be done) then it can be re-assessed whether it is significant enough to be summarized in the infobox.
5. I think this is highlighted well enough in the body of the article, but if you think you can propose improved and/or expanded text for that for the body of the article, please do: if this can garner enough support to be implemented in the article, it can be re-assessed whether this would be mentioned in the infobox again.

Re. "... action in prisons ...": afaik this is mentioned in infobox, lead section, and body of the article as "Peace Education Program". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Faunus: please don't post on my user talk page concerning this topic, as long as a talk page discussion about the same is open. Asking how I'm involved in this is a question that is perfectly germane for this article talk page. To answer that question: see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 52, specifically the "RfC on first sentence of the article", where the infobox rewrite I proposed was discussed, after which it was implemented (back in 2014). Over-all picture: there are over 50 archive pages for this article predating the 2014 RfC. Since that RfC we're still at ... archive #52. So I reckon that the 2014 infobox layout may have had something to do with the subsequent relative stability of the article (although I don't want to assume a major credit for that development). Well probably, maybe even likely, some updating to the infobox is desirable after seven years. For myself, having had a look now at the 2014 RfC again, I also see that yesterday I made some choices for the infobox significantly different from what I proposed in 2014. Suppose I have evolved a bit too. But, anyhow, I'd suggest to move slowly, step by step, always keeping in mind that an unbalanced infobox may have the effect of destabilizing the article again. For that, a minimum requirement for *any* infobox content is that such content also appears summarized in the lead section, and more elaborate, with references to reliable sources, in the body of the article. Other than that, any infobox content needs to point to significant characteristics, as in characteristics that are widely associated with the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Ok, I will move the discussion to my own Talk page. I didn't write to you here because I saw the warning on the top of this one "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." And it is a general discussion about this article I want to have with you first. I looked to the archive #52 at the section RfC and frankly I didn't really understood what it is about. I don't even know what is RfC. I'm not used to those process and my rough English is an handicap to me. What I don't understand is why you made all the changes you made without a prior discussion here, as I did. The rule should be the same to everybody. I will come back on each point later, after I gather some sources, as you want that each word is justify, even what is evident. Contest the fact is a Speaker when it is his main activity is bit surprising. And as you didn't take time to answer to my questions, I remain skeptical about your motivations for discussing each change, even those that are really minimal: going from Inspirational Speaker to Speaker, what a big deal. --Faunus (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, WP:NOT#FORUM (the policy linked from the box above) applies to all Wikipedia (talk) pages. Your talk page is not a "forum for general discussion of (whatever)," nor is mine, nor is this article talk page. The distinction is whether or not a discussion serves the goal of improving the article (on Prem Rawat in this case). So I will not be participating in a "general" discussion on whatever subject, not on my talk page, not on your user talk page, and not here. My concern was to keep a discussion in one place: raising the same issue on a new page, when there is an active discussion on the same somewhere else should generally be avoided: anybody can participate in such a discussion, but if such discussion is split up over multiple pages, that becomes hard to follow for newcomers. Re. RfC: see WP:RFC (RfC is an abbreviation for "Request for Comment", an invitation for others to participate in a discussion on a particular topic). Re. why I made the changes I made: I have no conflict of interest w.r.t. this article's subject, so I can be bold and edit the page. I tried to keep close to what I remembered from the old infobox discussion (which had resulted in a more or less stable consensus), but as I said above, my recollections were not flawless (and maybe I should have looked at the old discussion before making these changes). Anyhow, one possibility is to go back to an older (stable) version of the infobox, and take it from there step by step. One of these steps might be regarding which (if any) occupation should be in the infobox. I remember there used to be a reference to a reliable source which mentioned the "inspirational speaker," but yesterday "speaker" (inspirational or otherwise) was not mentioned in the article (any more?). So I removed it from the box. Might be the old reference is still somewhere in the article, or that this was implemented less strictly seven years ago: whatever, without identifying "speaker" as Rawat's occupation somewhere in the body of the article, with a reference to such reliable source attached to the info, it should certainly not be in the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s really strange that you don’t want to talk about the overall content of this page, the purpose and your understanding of the topic. You seem very good at using Wikipedia's rules, but in the service of what? --Faunus (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The "content of this page" can be discussed here, overall, or point by point, whatever helps to improve the page. I never said otherwise. Don't twist my words. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Great. So, what do you think of the fact that 60% of this biography focuses on the first 10 years of Prem Rawat's action, the one in which he had to face many challenges mainly due to his young age and the cultural gap that he had to face? Do you find that this meets the criteria of balance and precaution to be had in the case of the biography of a living person? --Faunus (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Afaik, there are more sources about the first 10 years of Prem Rawat's action than about the next 50 years. Compare Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations: the most recent source listed on that page dates from 2009. That may be a problem with that page: I'd be happy if it were extended with more recent material. See WP:BALASPS, i.e.: we follow material offered by reliable sources for the balance of the content of a Wikipedia page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)--Faunus (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Bibliography of Prem Rawat page, I do not understand its usefulness and I do not want to complete it as is until an agreement has been reached on a cleaning to be done in it to keep only serious sources in an encyclopedic setting. There are even pornographic magazines or tabloid press. But what is the point of such a page? It has no place in Wikipedia. Faunus (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TimelessToday

@Faunus: thanks for the reference ([15]). A few remarks:

• small remark: don't use "today" as a time marker in the prose of a Wikipedia article: As of 2015 or some such might be more useful. See WP:RELTIME.
• more importantly, the reference doesn't show the relevance for the Prem Rawat biography. I see Raymond R. Tabandeh, Rawat Creations LLC, and some other names being provided in the given reference, but no direct link to Prem Rawat. TimelessToday may be the publisher of Rawat's videos (etc), but I can't see the publisher of, e.g., an author being material for the lead section of a Wikipedia page about that author (unless maybe when the author is the actual founder of the publishing house, which does not seem to be the case here).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TimelessToday is a mark which is own by Rawat Creation inc. Maybe I can add this other link which more explicite about what does TT and its relation to Prem Rawat. https://skelia.com/references/project-cases/timelesstoday/ --Faunus (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the TimelessToday material to the body of the article, rewrote it (avoiding the RELTIME indicator) to what the source actually says, and tagged it for questionable relevance (until another source can establish the relation of the info to the person of Prem Rawat) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What better proof can you have of the connection between TimelessToday and Prem Rawat than a statement of official trademark registration? One only needs to visit the TimelessToday and Prem Rawat sites to see that it links to each other. This kind of factual information does not need an outside source to attest to it.

Here are some links you can consult:

- on the official website of Prem Rawat https://www.premrawat.com/explore/about-prem-rawat

- on the TimelessToday website https://www.timelesstoday.tv/about

You don't seem really master the subject, so please consult with me before making any kind of change. I too can be of great help to you. We will save time and efficiency. In addition, the sentence you added does not seem very clear to me in terms of the wording. One wonders what it is doing there and what information it is supposed to bring to the reader. Remember that we are on a general public encyclopedic project.

You would be cooperative in delivering the information as agreed with Littleolive oil the 20 March 2021 before we intervened in an untimely fashion. I count on you. Thank you --Faunus (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the TimelessToday official trademark registration does not mention Prem Rawat:

• two persons are mentioned by name on the trademark registration page, an attorney and an employee: neither is Prem Rawat; no other persons are mentioned by name;
• the mentioned trademark owner, Rawat Creations, LLC, is a company, not a person. The registration page makes not clear if and how Rawat Creations, LLC, would be linked to the person Prem Rawat.

So the reference carries no "proof" whatsoever that TimelessToday is linked to Prem Rawat, and even less that TimelessToday would be a "multimedia company" (it is not even a company: it is a trademark of another company – that company is Rawat Creations, LLC) and would be managing "documentation, production and distribution of Prem Rawat’s talks and writings" (none of that is mentioned on the trademark registration page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are playing a rather dangerous game with specious arguments which can easily be turned against you, if I were to be forced to ask for arbitration.

The link I have produced is a legal document. It responds to rules and everything is verifiable. You can contact the site to verify the information if you have any doubts. But of course this document is not intended to precisely describe the services. This is why I suggested that you consult another link and possibly add it, if that can reassure you: https://skelia.com/references/project-cases/timelesstoday/

On the other hand, I have indicated 2 cross links which prove that these two entities are related. Rawat Creations appears on the same pages, alongside TPRF and WOPG, the other related entities of the group. It is up to you to prove that this information is false or these documents falsified.

What exactly are you looking for by doing this? Why are you only acting in the sense of slowing things down, complicating them at your leisure. Or do you really have no knowledge of the subject you are dealing with? In this case, it is better to fall back on those you master, such as classical music for example, which seems to be your specialty. Personally I would not allow myself to intervene on a subject over which I have no competence, especially when it is a BLV article. --Faunus (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the suggested links:

• https://skelia.com/references/project-cases/timelesstoday/ is a self-published source. It is a page from a company website. That company is named Skelia. Its field of expertise is IT. The company published its page on TimelessToday with the commercial objective of making publicity for its own services. Its website can, according to English Wikipedia's rules, only be used as a source for uncontroversial claims about itself in a Wikipedia article about itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF) – such article on the Skelia company does not appear to exist in Wikipedia. In English Wikipedia the Skelia website can not be used as a reference for claims regarding TimelessToday or Prem Rawat in the Prem Rawat article – not under any condition (see also WP:BLPSPS).
• https://www.premrawat.com/explore/about-prem-rawat is a webpage falling, for its use as source in Wikipedia's Prem Rawat article, under the WP:BLPSELFPUB part of the BLP policy. The page claims that "TimelessToday is a ... company ..." – which seems to be a controversial claim (see above: it rather seems to be a brand of another company). It might be that since the TimelessToday trademark was registered that, e.g., it became a company in its own right (e.g. as a subsidiary of Rawat Creations LLC or some other construction) but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to cobble such information together from different sources (for clarity: a synthesis of different sources is not allowed in a BLP, see WP:BLPREMOVE, second bullet). In sum, the conditions of BLPSELFPUB seem not to have been met to use this as a source in English Wikipedia's article about Prem Rawat. Besides, www.premrawat.com is listed as the subject's personal website in Prem Rawat#External links, so readers who want to know where to acquire "content about the human potential for peace and well-being as explored by renowned speaker Prem Rawat" can go to that website: it is not Wikipedia's task to provide publicity for where the subject's material can be bought. The link to the personal website from the subject's Wikipedia page should suffice for that, for those who want to explore where such material can be acquired.
• https://www.timelesstoday.tv/about is a webpage that can only be used as a source in English Wikipedia's article on Prem Rawat if it can be established that it is "written or published by" Prem Rawat (see BLPSPS), which does not appear to be the case, or, at least, is not demonstrated thus far.

I think the trademark information (as currently contained in the last sentence of the "History" section of the article) too far-fetched (i.e., as biographical information about Prem Rawat) to retain it, and see no possibility, on the basis of the proposed additional sources, to expand this into something more relevant to the biographical article. I'd give it some more time to find appropriate sources for more relevant content about TimelessToday, but if none can be found, I suppose I'd remove the sentence (and its registration office reference).

For clarity: it is possible to challenge my above assessment of these three suggested additional sources: WP:RSN would normally be the right forum for that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It becomes hilarious, so surreal! You are a great comic.

I am well aware that all of these links from PR organizations are not secondary sources. But it is admitted to a certain extent that they can be used when there is nothing else available, especially when it comes to providing purely technical information which has no bearing on the theses developed in the article. The way you use Wikipedia's rules is a sign of either a misunderstanding or a devious form of bending the rules.

The truth is that this site does exist, that it has a legal existence (this single link is enough to state it) and that it is therefore part of the objective elements of the biography of Prem Rawat, insofar as it is one of the main channels, if not the main channel today, for the production and broadcasting of Prem Rawat's lectures. It is not a question here of qualifying this content, of making neither the apology nor the criticism, but simply to give the factual information that people who, reading the Wikipedia page, want to know more on who is this man, what he does, he has broadcast channels. Point.

At that rate, one of these days you are going to tell me that I cannot prove that Prem Rawat is indeed the person who goes on stage to give lectures, but a double and that there is no article. attesting that it is indeed him. If you know of a serious secondary source that testifies that TimelessToday is unrelated to Prem Rawat, please produce it.

Indeed, if you prevent me from giving out this factual information which is completely neutral and does not imply any intention to advocate anything, I will consider how best to make you listen to reason.

I notice from reading your Talk page that there have been many complaints against you for your blocking and other actions. I skimmed over all of this quickly because frankly I am not very interested in it, but someone who must have been aware of our controversy alerted me. --Faunus (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Rawat Creations and Timeless Today are limited liability companies - LLCs. They are registered in the state of Delaware. If you search for them online, you can only get the names and the fact that they exist.

Here is a review of the TimelessToday app in a third-party US database of smartphone applications. Notice that it says "The Message of Prem Rawat" under the TimelessToday logo.

https://appgrooves.com/app/timelesstoday-by-rawat-creations-llc

And another one:

https://www.youthapps.in/2017/12/prem-rawats-timeless-today-app.html

And in this one, Prem Rawat is quoted at least 6 times:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.app.timelesstoday&hl=en_US&gl=US

--Faunus (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The mobile app looks promising imho, anyway more interesting as article content than the rather abstract discussion of who owns the TimelessToday trade mark. Do we have more information about it? E.g., when was it launched? Do we have 3rd-party comments about it in reliable secondary sources? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See this update – the only problem with that update is that ZoomInfo urls are blacklisted at English-language Wikipedia, which often indicates a less reliable source. So the two sentences exclusively referenced to that source may need to be removed, revised and/or referenced to another source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Very good! I agree with your change Francis Schonken. The launch of the app is indeed more interesting information than the existence of the company. I do not have access to all the info on ZoomInfo here in France unless I take out a subscription. I'll find out if we can find anything about the exact launch date. On the other hand, this link seems interesting to me because it gives at least the launch date of TimelessToday on July 31, 2016: https://www.youthapps.in/2017/12/prem-rawats-timeless-today-app.html Thank you! --Faunus (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The launch date could possibly be December 12, 2017 according to this link (V1.0). But official launch could be later. Does it really matter to the reader? https://apkpure.com/timelesstoday/com.app.timelesstoday/versions --Faunus (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaker and Self-knowledge

Lawrencekhoo scores a point. Difficult, reading this article to dispute his addition of “spiritual leader”. Courtesy would have liked him to argue it here, but hey, apparently, he's a fan of the hard way.

The problem is that this appellation which could be understood in 1971, today is completely outdated. It can be argued whether Prem Rawat teaches spirituality or not. This appellation nowadays covers all kinds of more or less esoteric approaches and imprints of religion. This is respectable, but it does not correspond to that of Prem Rawat who precisely deconstructs the esoteric and more or less vague side of the definition of spirituality. This is why he himself refutes it as far as he is concerned. In episode 80 of his Lockdown with Prem Rawat series which aired every day during the first lockdown (which can be found on his website and on his youtube channel), he said: “What I want to tell you is what you already know. And secondly, I want to tell it to you in a way so that it comes as news to you. That’s my challenge.”

We are very far from spirituality in the sense in which it is usually understood. Closer to what Socrates said and which is probably his most common quote: "Know thyself." One of his favorite recommendations lately that he has used in many conferences is: “Know thyself, live your life consciously and let your heart filled with gratitude.” Quote from a virtual talk he gave in July 2020 and can be found on the TimelessToday site under the title “The heart of being simple”.

We have big progress ahead if we want to have an accurate biography. --Faunus (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The "spiritual leader" qualifier would need a reference: currently it is only mentioned, without reference, in the lead sentence, so tagged accordingly --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)