Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Philanthropy

See philanthropy. Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, services, time and/or effort to support a socially beneficial cause, with a defined objective and with no financial or material reward to the donor. In a more general sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity intended to promote good or improve human quality of life. One who practices philanthropy may be called a philanthropist. Seems to me founding TPRF more than qualifies him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Rumiton, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't go through and decide which things are true based on our own assessments of whether they meet certain definitions. Instead we report what we find in reliable sources. See WP:OR and WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Limiting external links to two - Compromise Proposal

In an effort to avoid a long, protracted argument over placing additional external links to Rawat-related websites, I propose that only two are used: Prem Rawat's personal website, Maharaji.org, and The Prem Rawat Foundation website, tprf.org. While I don't believe that any additional links to Rawat's personal site are required because all the Rawat-related site are linked to each other, I also don't see any usefulness in arguing for a month over this very minor issue. Therefore, I hope for a quick compromise and consensus among editors about this in the next couple of days. Let's stop the edit-warring now. Please state your agreement or disagreement to limiting EL to two links only, below. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree to limiting EL to two Rawat links. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Can't see the point in limiting to two. If additional links provide a better picture of PR and his work and are not derogatory, let's use them. They take up very little space. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not willing to go with more than two ELs. All of the official links for Prem Rawat have "Link" sections that lead anyone to any other pertinent sites that any human being could ever desire to read. There is contact information for any reader on those various websites and FAQ. You won on the EPO link, please don't press this. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sylviecyn, I agree with your proposal, I find it reasonable, you have pleasantly surprised me. Thank you very much. Hallo Rumiton, my Dutch trading sense (learned here in NL, not born with it) tells me it is wise to accept the proposal, it is twice as good as what "we have", and this does not exclude that in the future Sylviecyn (and perhaps also Will Beback, but no hope with Mr./Mrs. 41.223.60.60) will continue being generous and we might have three links. Be patient, Rumitorn, don't ask too much, better two birds in your hand than some more in the bush. Is a little humor alright? Where are the independent or neutral voices? I mean neither premies nor expremies, because right now this looks like a tennis doubles match, with Sylviecyn and Will Beback against Momento and Rumiton. I cannot play, I have too much work and little time, and cannot even be referee. If no 3rd party referee/s come to help, this is probably going to be a long match and, unlike in tennis, there is no tie-break here.--Pedrero (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in this at all. The two links currently there are cult sites and hagiographic, for encyclopaedic balance the views of ex-cult members is important. I'd argue for no links at all or to include the link to the site that provides information that is not controlled by the cult. I don't see this as any sort of compromise at all, quite the reverse, actually. 41.223.60.60 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Mr./Mrs. 41.223.60.60, do you think the prestigious universities, World Forum, United Nations, etc. and the many intellectuals who attend his speeches consider Prem a cult leader in 2008? I agree Prem could be considered a cult leader in the seventies, but I do not think many institutions consider Prem a cult leader in 2008, I rather think the therm "cult leader" is nowadays mainly used (repeatedly, mantra-style), by you and a few expremies more, out of hundreds of thousands. In what year do you live? And talking about cults, few can see the difference between western cults and eastern cults. Do you know many cases of easter "cult leaders" that ended up like Jim Jones or like David Koresh? It seems unlikely that the Dalai Lama, for instance, is likely to organise a good-bye party Jim Jones style. Could you let us know whether you are a man or a woman, so I do not need to write Mr./Mrs.?. Thanks.--Pedrero (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please folks, let's keep the subject of this section to the EL issue and not extend it to a discussion about cults. This is just not the place to have these discussions. I'm trying to turn a new leaf here about keeping to the subject on the talk pages, please help me do that. Cheers! Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Sylviecyn, and Pedrero, your Dutch trading sense might be right. 2 links then. But what about when someone who has just watched Prem Rawat on Maharaji Speaks or YouTube or somewhere, comes here and inserts their link? What do we tell them? We (it sounds almost royal) have agreed not to use that link? We need a good reason, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Compromises and consensuses aside, there is a clear logic for including TPRF.org, which is that the TPRF article was deleted and redirected here. While the subject does not appear to have any formal connection to the foundation, he does say that he founded it. As for other links, they need to be justified individually. Wikipedia is not a link directory. To be consuistent, if we exclude links becuase they are not neutral because they include negative assessments, then we also need to exclude non-neutral positive websites. But I discourage us from devoting time to links - experience shows that we can get into protacted disputes and the links do little to help the actual article.   Will Beback  talk  16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Another subtle error on your behalf, Will. He doesn't say he founded it, TPRF says he is their founder. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an error, subtle or otherwise. Btw, when was the last time Prem Rawat publicly stated anything specifically about what he is or what he does, 1973 or 1974? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Btw, Rawat's personal website, states it's maintained by TPRF. It also links to TPRF, ContactInfo, and many, many other Rawat-related and supporting websites, therefore, if these sites are listed on his personal website, the logical conclusion is that Rawat endorses that people read what is on those websites and draw their own conclusions. That said, I think it's incorrect for TPRF to state he founded the organization, because he never funded it; he isn't on incorporation documents; and he is not on its board of directors. In life, one can't have one's cake and eat it too. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Known as...

This article's talk page already has 39 archives. Many of those include discussions of what the subject has been called. We also participated in lengthy mediation which included drafting the introduction. The various appelations of the subect are well-sourced and have been thoroughly discussed. It is disruptive when editors ignore all of that and just delete the mateial on a whim.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Claa68's reminder that this article should start with who Rawat is, not who he was. He is not known as Balyogeshwar or the LOTU. And he isn't a "spiritual leader" either. I'm going to ask for article protection if editors take the opportunity to insert 30 year old material as if it is happening now. Sylvie's edit seems the best so far.Momento (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It was Cla68 who added LOTU, so I don't know what you mean when you say you agree with him. We've discussed the other terms many times before. Have you forgtotten our previous discussions? It is standard practice in WP to list alternate names at the beginning of biographies.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said Will, it is very clear. I said "I agree with Claa68's reminder that this article should start with who Rawat is, not who he was". Rawat is known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaji), he is not known as "Balyogeshwar" or "Lord of the Universe". Nor are "Balyogeshwar" and "Lord of the Universe" "alternative names that should be listed at the beginning of biographies" , they are long disused Indian titles that Rawat abandoned in the early 80s when he dropped the Hindu/Indian aspects of his teachings. You desire to include titles given by others from a different culture 40 years ago as if they are current "alternative names" is dishonest and unhelpful. Stop doing it.Momento (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he no longer uses those names doesn't mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, where alternative names are nomrally included. This article is about the subject's entire life, not just the past decade. This material has been stable for months, so why are you changing it now?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The new removals of "Balyogeshwar" were mentioned by me in a new WP:AE thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar is an important handle to retain because that is how Goom Rodgie is listed in older editions of Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, for people doing research. There were numerous "Guru Maharaj Ji's" at the time the Rawats came to America to make money, including Richard Alpert (later Baba Ram Das)'s guru, Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba Maharaj, so "Balyogeshwar Boy Guru" was the official designation for a number of years. Wowest (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for Arbcom. Balyogeshwar and Lord of the Universe are not alternative names nor is PR known by these titles. I'm not editing until there is Arbcom supervision.Momento (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is under ArbCom probation, which specifically prohibits edit warring. This is the secoind time in a week that you've enaged in edit warring, and you were once again warned to avoid this disruptive behavior just the other day. All editors should be aware that the probation applies to them as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Two edits an edit war? And one was to remove an undiscussed insertion? Ten editors are currently editing this article and there have been over 20 edits in the last 24 hours. By what definition is my involvement an edit war? Let's see what Arbcom think. Lest I be accused of disruption on the talk page I'm going to make no further comment unless to Arbcom.Momento (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom (as in WP:ArbCom) is not likely to speak at WP:AE (where the issue is treated currently): the page is intended for uninvolved admins to apply (...or decline) requests for remedies listed in ArbCom cases. So we may assume Momento is retiring indefinitely? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Francis. I'll confine my comments to WP:AE.Momento (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, if Balyogeshwar "WAS an official designation", then IT IS NOT an official designation anymore. "Official" designation by whom?--Pedrero (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject signed his name "Sant Ji" well into the 1970s. He was still being called "Balyogeshwar" in the late 1970s in India. We're not making up these names. It is standard to list alternate names and titles at the beginning of biographies, just as we list his current honorary title. There are plenty of sources for these names, so I don't understand why there is a sudden objection to them. Please explain why you want this information deleted from the article.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The objection is to stating "he IS also known as... " instead of "he WAS also known "AS A CHILD", or "IN INDIA", or "IN THE SEVENTIES", also known as... Why do so many people want to bring the seventies back? This seems an obsession. As Jayen, who seems to be one of the few with common sense here rightly said: Clinton is not known as "Clinton the kid" anymore. We are in 2009.--Pedrero (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This biography covers the subject's entire life. Like many individuals, the subject was best known early in life. Cassius Clay decided to change his name in the 1960s, yet we still list his original name in the lead of Muhammad Ali, 45 years later.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lord of the Universe was not a name and was never used as a name. It was the title of a film and of a devotional song. Rawat never said: I am the Lord of the Universe (like e.g. Cassius Clay said: I am the Greatest), nor did he sign any document that way. Neither did his followers address him this way. Balyogeshwar was the name for the child guru and identified him among the multitude of all the Guru Maharaj Jis in India. So this could legitimately be mentioned in the lede section, with reference to its antiquity. A promotional brochure on Prem Rawat in the seventies was titeled: Balyogeshwar Shri Sant Ji Maharaj. Sant Ji was the name his parents called him, and he used it temporarily as a name for signing documents. All this LOTU-business has been existing only in the context of intentional derision in the mass media (like lately The Register) and ostentatively among detractors. This should not get mixed up with the real use of names in a serious biography.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sant Ji is how he signed his name as editor in chief of "And It Is Divine" and other documents, so it is a name he used withing the DLM on formal occasions. Per previous agreement, we don't mention it in the lead and just in the section on his youth (though it seems to have disappeared from there). Balyogeshwar is how he is referred to in some Indian sources as late as 1977, when he was 20 years old. Guru Maharaj Ji is the name that he used during his prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Maharaji is the current spelling of the previous name/honarary title. There is no question that those are names/titles that he used for himself or were used to refer to him. We've discussed these extensively and had agreed on them months ago. Can't we move on, or do we have to keep re-hashing the same disputes every few months?

As for Lord of the Universe, that was just added yesterday by Cla68. It was a title or epithet rather than a name. I wouldn't put it in the same list as the names, but it might be placed with other titles like "Perfect Master" (which has disappeared from the lead too). It is incorrect that the phrase is limited to a song and the video title. Rennie Davis discusses why Guru Maharaj Ji really is the lord of the universe in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?. The subject discusses the meaning of being the lord of the universe in an interview. Please consult the archives of this talk page, where this topic has already been discussed repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree. No need to get patronizing. We can always move on.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the archives because you made assertions that are plainly incorrect, which you would know if you've read the sources cited in the archives. Aside from the archive index page, you can easily search the archives using Wikipedia's own search function.[1] Let's move on, and stop wasting time going over the same ground endlessly.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rawat hasn't been a "spiritual leader" since DLM. And the Balyogeshwar change isn't an improvement.Momento (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rawat hasn't been a "spiritual leader" since DLM. - Source? This is probably best handled by reporting what he was and what he is. He was a "guru" and "spiritual leader" and now he's a "teacher" and "inspirational speaker", if I understand correctly. Those terms are not synonymous - one denotes a teacher who may have only a few students, while "leader" implies a following. A "teacher" may only have a few pupils, but a "speaker" would generally have an entire audience. All of those can be sourced. At the risk of some redundancy, should we keep them all?   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat ..., also known by the honorific Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and, in his youth, Balyogeshwar is a spiritual leader and teacher of a meditation practice called Knowledge.

While that is all true, it appears a bit clumsy and draws distinctions in the wrong place. First, "Balyogeshwar" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" are also honorifics. Since they're all honorifics maybe it'd be better to leave that out of the intro and explain it later. Second, the general claim is that he stopped using "Guru Maharaj Ji" in 1980 and yet he was still being referred as "Balyogeshwar" at least as late as 1977. So why do we say that one term applies to his youth while the other presumably doesn't? (And if we're going to specify youthful nicknames then we might as well add "Sant Ji" back too, since he also used that into his teens. At least we should add it back to the main text.) So how's this for a better version:

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known by the title Maharaji (previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) is an an inspirational speaker, spiritual leader, and former guru who teaches a meditation practice is called Knowledge.

That seems clearer and includes "inspirational speaker" which is a term preferred by the subject's proponents, if I'm not mistaken. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearer? You must be joking. "Former guru"? Presumably we should change every BLP to include "former teenager", "former child".Momento (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't undserstand your point. Everyone over the age of 20 years is a "former teenager". Very few of people are former gurus. The subject is notable for having been a guru. I don't see the problem.   Will Beback  talk  10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the best so far. Btw, I happened to notice that Wikipedia has two disambiguation pages, one for "Maharaji," and another for "Maharaj Ji," which are the same title, but with different spellings. Do you know why this is? Interesting is that Ram Dass is missing from either disambiguation page -- he is also known as Maharaj-Ji. I'm still puzzled as to why Momento is so vehemently against the use of Balyogeshwar in the lede, given that Rawat is an Indian-American. Perhaps he can explain, as using a/k/a's in the lede is standard Wikipedia BLP practice and it only serves to help inform readers. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, those pages do mention Neem Karoli Baba, Ram Dass's guru, who was known as Maharaji/Maharaj-ji. Could that be who you're thinking of? I don't see any indication that Ram Das himself is known by that title.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Why I didn't notice that is probably because I'm still suffering from this three week old morphing-demon-rhino-virus that won't quit has made me feel like my noggin is filled with cotton. Thank you Will, I love it when I learn something new everyday. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Ram Das, but I have a small problem with "former guru." The other descriptors, (inspirational speaker and spiritual leader) cover a lot of the same territory as guru, so adding former guru seems a bit contradictory. I think his path away from traditional guruhood is best explained in the body of the article. Also we look a bit dumb if we don't say that Balyogeshwar was a childhood name, as this is obvious to any Hindi speaker who shows up here. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC) To expand on that, I have a friend, John X, who until the age of about 17 was known as "Chookie." If he had his own Wiki article, and it started "John X, also known as Chookie..." it would clearly not be a good thing. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So John X was a famous guru in his youth as well?Surdas (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And your point is...? Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If John X became famous as "Baby Doc", and if books were written using that name exclusively to refer to him, then we would include that name in his biography even if he dropped the name later in life. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, and the subject's names are obviously key information for a biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that Rawat is doubtlessly still considered a guru by his many followers in India, albeit a very special kind of guru. He does not lead a double life, one for India and one for the West, and never the twain shall meet. He leads his Indian students from where they stand by their tradition, and he simultaneously approaches people in the west on their grounds, which is a very demanding task. So how is this (after all the name stuff): He has been considered a guru in India, and also an independent spiritual teacher internationally. He teaches a set of concentration techniques called "Knowledge". Independent meaning that he does not refer to religious tradition. BTW he has explicitly denied being an inspirational speaker, and that should not be overruled, only because some media have called him that. This is the trouble with a living master: Hard to be put in a box.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Very hard to box. I have heard him say he "cringed" when called a motivational speaker but I don't think "inspirational speaker" is far off. Rumiton (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think you're right, I got that mixed, sorry. So inspirational speaker is o.k.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He was notably considered a guru in the West, so it would be misleading to just say he considered a guru in India. I don't recall see any source decribe Knowledge as a "concentration technique", so that seems like an odd term. I don't know what "independent" adds or what the sources would be for that. I'd thought he was called "inspirational speaker" in his own press releases. He is called that by Aldridge.[2]   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• We don't need to mention in the first sentence that he is a "former guru" if we say in the second sentence that he became a guru to millions at age 8. Please let's not lose sight of the bigger picture by looking at sentences in isolation. Jayen466 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There was a concern that the intro didn't adequately explain the subject's current status. He is either a former guru or (as pointed out above) still a guru. We can use the second sentence to expand on that, since he became the "Perfect Master" at age eight, which we currently omit from the intro even though it's important.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I am concerned, we can drop the "spiritual leader" in the first sentence and just leave him as "the teacher of a meditation practice called Knowledge". Most people take meditation to be "something spiritual" anyway. And I have no objection to adding inspirational speaker in the first sentence, if editors want to include it. Jayen466 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a significant difference between being a "teacher" and being a "spiritual leader". One does not imply the other.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • According to our article on spiritual leaders, it does. :-) But then the article is not very good. Jayen466 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "Those spiritual teachers can guide people on through their life much like sickecs." Well, if Wikipedia says so then it must be true. ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Let no one say that Wikipedia is incapable of expressing esoteric thought. :-)) Jayen466 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rawat is not a "spiritual leader" nor an "inspirational speaker". He may have a following but so do actors, sportspeople, pop stars etc and they are not described as leaders. He is a "speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace". The "guru" business is adequately covered by known as "Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji). Any objections?Momento (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rawat may not be a spritual leader now, but he was the leader of a prominent new religious movement. That fact is well-sourced. See Talk:Prem Rawat/References Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of. "Spiritual leader" is better than "religious leader" since folks object to calling the DLM/Elan Vital a religion.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and he was also a guru. This is very simple, Q: How can Rawat be described that accurately covers why he has an article in Wikipedia. A: He has been a "speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace" for more than forty years. He has not been a "spiritual leader" or a "guru" or a "former guru" or a "father" or any other description for forty years. And unless someone can come up an objection to my suggestion, it should go in.Momento (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter hasn't been a U.S. President for almost 30 years, yet we still mention that he used to be one. Rawat is quite notable for having been a spiritual leader. He is barely notable for being a speaker.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Will, you are hitting the nail on it's head. Momento seems to follow the official party line of tprf Surdas (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No nail hitting there, Words of Peace, his TV program, is shown on public TV in Brisbane alone (where I happen to live) every afternoon, and watched by thousands. This is notability in itself, even if it was not happening anywhere else. (Which it is.) Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

QCTV/Channel 31, which is apparently the channel on which the show is broadcast in Brisbane, is a community channel. How do we know how many people watch the show? Has the press coverage of the subject's appearance on that channel come close to rivaling the press and scholarly coverage that he received while he was a guru? Are you asserting that everyone who appears on community television is notable, just for being on television? This seems like a really weak argument.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is weak at all. Brisbane is just one city, where I happen to live and which I know about. This show is aired all over the world. See [[3]].

Jimmy Carter has an article because he WAS the president. Rawat gets an article because he IS a "speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace" and has been for 40 years.Momento (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. A subject gets an article because he or she is notable, as demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. The bulk of sources about this subject concern his career as a spiritual leader, not his career as a speaker. Here's a modified draft:

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known by the title Maharaji (previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar), is a speaker and former spiritual leader who teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge.

That's correct, isn't it?   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Will, I do not think it is correct, sorry not to agree with you this time. I agree with the description given by Rainer--Pedrero (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem doesn't like knowledge to be called meditation and he doesn't like to be called an inspirational speaker or spiritual leader, regardless of the facts. Present followers here are just following his wishes.Surdas (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That is probably true Surdas. What do you think is the reason for this?--Pedrero (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

..is a speaker and former spiritual leader. Come on, Will. I am a freaking "speaker" myself, I speak all the time. We can do better than that. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Speaker" or "inspirational speaker": either is fine. Both can be sourced. I thought folks were preferring the former to the latter which is why I changed it. Which do you prefer?   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Francis' revert, and P.S. re the last mediation effort

I am rather disappointed that we now have the same version in the lede AGAIN that no one but Francis has said they like. [4] Jayen466 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, any views on the appropriateness of this revert by Francis? The problem I have with Francis' version is that it fails to make clear that Balyogeshwar and Guru Maharaj Ji are titles that are no longer used by the subject. As for how he came to be called Balyogeshwar, see [5], which states that Rawat was referred to as Balyogeshwar and Guru Maharaj Ji after he took over from his father at age 6. If Francis insists that we should not call Balyogeshwar a honorific without a source explicitly calling it such, then I suggest we go with Will's intro: "Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known by the title Maharaji (previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar), ...". Please discuss. Jayen466 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the age-old problem of intelligent editing. Honorifics are honorifics, we should not need to be told so. Childhood honorifics are in another interesting category, one perhaps almost unique to Prem Rawat. This point should be made. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC) OK, maybe that last one is original research, but calling honorifics, honorifics is not. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is actually the version that we spent considerable time working out, and which has been the consensus version for months. If there's something better then let's agree to it first, before making changes.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Will, this here is the version we had since October last year, when you transferred it from a proposal page we all worked on. It said,

    "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji, became guru to 3 million people in India at the age of eight."

  • This is not what is says now. Now it says,

    Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji, is a teacher of a meditation practice called Knowledge.

  • Please note the difference underlined and marked with font formatting above. Rawat was called Balyogeshwar when be became guru as a small boy. He is not called Balyogeshwar now. That's all – or at least a part – of what we're trying to get right here. Surely, that is not beyond us. Jayen466 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • • Could you make those bigger? I'm having trouble seeing the difference. ;) There seem to be two separate issues here: whether and how to include the name/title "Balyogeshwar", and how to describe the subject's former and current occupations. Regarding the former, there is no dispute that he used to be called that. The only question is whether to include it in the lead and if so how to word it. Let's start an RfC on the matter and see if we can get outside input on this simple matter. (The other issue is much more complex and I suggest we marshall sources to see if there are any terms that predominate).   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• As for honorifics, "Maharaji" is also an honorific. I don't see why we need to explain that in the first sentence. Perhaps a sentence in the "Childhood" section, when he adopts the title "GMJ", could explain the meaning of the term. Then in the "Westernization" section we can explain that ht dropped the "guru" title and somplified the honofiric to "Maharaji".   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Who spent "considerable time working out"? This has been "the consensus version for months"? Rawat is not a "spiritual leader", it was added by Cla68 a week ago and promptly removed.Momento (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the names/titles. Regarding "spiritual leader", please see /Leader of for a list of sources that support the characterization. I count nine that use that exact phrase, two of them within the last ten years.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Who spent "considerable time working out"? This has been "the consensus version for months"? Rawat is not a "spiritual leader", it was added by Cla68 a week ago and promptly removed.[6] Here's what WP:CS says "Sources should be cited when adding material to the biography of a living person". Do you see a cite for Cla68's addition? I don't. And here's what WP:RS says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page". It's out.Momento (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sources on that subpage?   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have looked at the sources for "teacher"?Momento (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that there are sources for "teacher", though I haven't looked specifically. You removed "spiritual leader" because it was unsourced. There are nine sources in /Leader of which use that exact term for the subject. Do you assert that all nine of them are not reliable sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources elsewhere don't count as in line cites. "spiritual leader" is just one of dozens of descriptions, including "teenage", "Indian" etc. that have been used over the years. "Teacher" as a description of Rawat far outweighs anything else. We even have an article called, wait for it, "Teachings of prem rawat".Momento (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddha and Confucious have teachings, but we don't call them teachers. (Actually, I see we do call Gautama Buddha a "spiritual teacher". If we can find a source for that we might add it to this article too). As an occupation, "teacher" usually refers to someone who works in a school. The source you added does not use the term, so we'd need to find a different source for that as an occupation. It does call him a "master" and a "living master". Would you object to restoring "spiritual leader" using one of the sources listed? If so, please give a good reason.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddha and Confucious have been dead for hundreds of years and scholars have had plenty of time to come to a conclusion about who or what they were. The lead doesn't say Rawat is a "teacher", it says Rawat is "a teacher of a meditation practice called Knowledge". I object to using "spiritual leader" because it is a new addition, it is undue weight because he is far more frequently described as a "teacher", "master" or someone who has "teachings". Geaves says "Maharaji himself does not conform to any stereotype of a religious or spiritual leader".Momento (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that he's called "master" more frequently than "Perfect Master". You haven't provided even a single source for "teacher", so that's just speculation. "...A teacher of..." implies there are other teachers of the same thing. "...The teacher of...", or "...[he] teaches a meditations practice..." would be more correct as they don't imply multiple teachers. As for "spiritual leader", Geaves doens't say he isn't a spiritual leader, just that he isn't a stereotypical spiritual leader. We have another source that calls him a stereotypical cult leader, so the matter of stereotypes is complicated and best avoided in the intro. So we have nine good, uncontested reliable sources for "spiritual leader". I don't understand the objection to the term. During last summer's mediation even Rumiton added it to proposed drafts.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Actually, Will, many premies still currently refer to Rawat as their "Master." "Teacher" is not an apt desription of Prem Rawat, neither is "speaker on the subject of peace." That's watered down junk. As I stated in the above section to Rumiton, the use of "a/k/a" or "also known as" encompasses both past and current names. Whether or not Rawat is called Balyogeswhar then or now is immaterial to the use of "a/k/a." Jayen's various definitions are also immaterial because we're not doing original research on Hindi terms and titles. It's unhelpful for Jayen to continue this way every time an issue comes up about any of the various Hindu terms that have been used with this NRM, because they were used in the western countries and not necessarily based on strict Hindi definitions. Momento's protests are immaterial because of the English usage of "a/k/a" that covers (again!) both past and current names of a living or deceased person. I'm taking a big deep breath and a sigh... That said, what happened to the "formerly known as" (the only three little words I edited in this article in about two or three years)? If this contentious arguing (especially the sarcasm by some) continues, I might feel tempted to escalate this to insist on including "Perfect Master" and "Lord of the Universe" in the lede under Prem Rawat's "a/k/a's." There are plenty of sources for both. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation interests

I think what the gadget does is, it determines by GPS the correct time zone in each case, as time zones do not always simply coincide with the course of meridians, but often follow national or state borders. And it automatically adjusts time according to an exact template of the actual, sometimes erratic shape of the borders between time zones in air space. Would be useless, if it had to be adjusted manually in the course of a flight over several time zones. That could be done with any watch. The point is the automatic consideration of the sometimes erratic relation between position and time zone. It is then possible to fly over a lobe of another country, where you seemingly reverse the ideal progress of the time zone (by meridian, like mostly over the oceans). Goodness, maybe somebody can formulate this with better accuracy or simplicity than I can.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we mention this at all, since the only reference is a primary source. So far as we know, the invention has never been produced, so it's not clear that it is significant in any way. Can anyone find a better source? If not then the watch should be deleted as trivia.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out by Jayen recently ([7]), BLP's should not contain material that is based on primary sources and is not quoted thus in secondary sources. If I understood Jayen correctly that is a policy level rule. The patent material should be removed from the article, unless a secondary source mentions it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The watch mention should be deleted. Mention of this questionable invention is original research because the link is to the U.S. Patent Office. It's not a published fact. It ought not be in the article at all, especially since it's not exclusively Rawat's invention. A premie worked on the invention too (probably did all the work because Rawat's style is to come up with an abstract idea and let others do the work on it -- I know because I worked with him) and that person ought to be mentioned if this watch is to be included here, or maybe that premie ought to get their own BLP article, what do you say? This is simply bald-faced, shameless promotion of Rawat as something his is not (an inventor) and serves no purpose in his biography. How about editors work on more important issues here, like trying to get along with each other and resolving the lead for starters? Jeezum Crow already!  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Francis and Sylviecyn; needs a secondary source or should go. Jayen466 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much. Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has found a secondary source for this, and no one seems to think this is that important, I'll go ahead and remove it. Should a source discussing the invention appear we can always restore it.   Will Beback  talk  17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Go for it.Msalt (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope -- it is one of the few non-contentious parts of the entire article, shows him as more than one-dimensional, and the primary source is not being used for any OR at all -- the material is clear to a person with absolutely no specialist knowledge as to what is covered (which is not true of all patents to be sure). It is the "specialist knowledge" which would be an objection, and I suggest that that objection does not apply to this case. Collect (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two issues here. One is how to report what is in a primary source, the other is the notability of what's found in them. You've only addresed the first. Even there, a recent editing dispute which prompted this thread discussed how to describe the invention. Since there are no secondary sources that provide a cogent summary of its purpose and action, we would need to come up with one on our own. We haven't been able to agree on that, which deomonstrates the problem. As for the second point, there is no evidence that this is in any way notable. Subjects of BLPs appear in countless public databases, but we don't go through and pick out items that we think are interesting. The subject isn't an inventor, isn't known for this invention, and this invention has never been mentioned in any of the hundreds or thousands of articles and books that discuss him. If we searched the records of the country department of animal control and found he had a license for a terrier named "Fido" that would also give a different dimension to the person and be interesting but it would not be appropriate to add. Or we could go through SEC forms and find which companies he is invested. Would that be appropriate? I don't think so. In addition to those to issues, another objection is that we don't know what his actual involvement in the patent was. For all we know he just said something like "Gee, it'd be neat to have a watch that automatically adjusts time zones" and then his followers did the work of translating that into a patent application. Since we don't know anything about his depth of involvement it could be undue weight. Lastly, I don't think the subject is portrayed as one-dimensional. However it is increasingly the trend on WP to limit biographies to the matters that make a person notable which is why including things like pets and hobbies are included less and less in BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's nothing further I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat awarded Ambassadorship for Peace by Unipaz University

Looks like another of those trivial items that we can ignore until they reach a flood and make us wonder if something important might really be going on here. [[8]]

We already discussed that one. See Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 39#"Ambassador for Peace".   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, must have missed most of that one. But was this video available for that discussion? It seems to answer many of the questions raised. Rumiton (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Regarding the insinuation that Unipaz is somehow a part of Prem Rawat's world, I see a search for Unipaz gives 238,000 hits (though some appear to refer to a video game by the same name) and Unipaz Rawat only gives 302 hits. Rumiton (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the video a 3rd-party source? No, it doesn't appear to be. Let's find an independent source that thinks this is worth reporting before spending more time on it. TPRF puts out a dozen or more press releases every year. Not quite a flood, but even a hundred press releases shouldn't affect our writing.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not a press release, but it may not be a respected secondary source either. Rumiton (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत

I don't know what the Wiki guidelines are for foreign languages but the idea that anyone with an Indian name can have a Hindi equivalent tacked on the end is an imposition. In this case Rawat has been a US citizen nearly 40 years. Presumably a person with an Indian name who may be the second or third generation born outside of India can suffer the same fate even if they can't speak Hindi. Looks like cultural imperialism to me. And since the Hindi translation is of no interest to the vast majority of English speaking Wiki readers, it doesn't belong anyway. All it does is brand Prem Rawat a person born in India.Momento (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I don't care about the issue either way; but you may want to refactor your comments. Being an Indian or of Indian origin is not something one "suffers from" or "is branded with". The use of the phrase "cultural imperialism" in your current comments appears quite ironic - which I am sure is not your intention. Abecedare (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And you may want to re-read what I wrote. One, I didn't say  being "an Indian or of Indian origin" is something one "suffers from", the fate "one can suffer from" is being "imposed upon" by thoughtless editors. Two, I didn't say being "an Indian or of Indian origin" is something one "is branded with". I objected to Rawat being further "branded", labeled, categorized as an Indian by inserting Hindi script into an English article. The first sentence, which should be succinct, already says "Prem Rawat was born in India", adding a Hindi translation of his name and three titles is wordy, confusing and undue weight. Does every body with a foreign name and foreign script now have to have it inserted in their BLP? Do we add an Arabic translation to Mohammed Ali? Does every Jew now have to have a Hebrew translation? Look what they've done to Milla Jovovich, the actress. She left Russia with her family for political reasons when she was five. But her Wiki article gives her name in Ukrainian and Russian. It might be appropriate if she still lived in her place of birth but she fled Russia in fear? Where someone is born is a minor historical fact, it's what they do thereafter that is important. Rawat and Jovovich left their countries of birth as children, writing their names in Hindi and Russian just because they were born there is an imposition. And yes, I was being ironic.Momento (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A simple refactor and apology would be sufficient; but your reply is more revealing of your knowledge and views. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When you apologize for claiming I said "Being an Indian or of Indian origin is something one "suffers from" when it is clear I was talking about "suffering the imposition" of Hindi equivalent tacked on, I'll apologize for confusing you.Momento (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the subject have many students in India, and doesn't he return there on occasion? I don't think he's turned his back on his heritage just because he changed his main residence and citizenship. He has kept his Indian birth name and his Indian title. As folks have said often on these pages, transliterations and translations of Hindi words and phrases into English are imprecise. So there's a logic to including the correct spellings.    Will Beback  talk  12:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we know they are correct? I think Hindi language add-ons have a place in the Hindi Wikipedia. No one here (except perhaps for Jayen) is qualified to edit written Hindi. Look at the trouble we have had agreeing on English words. This can of worms would be a nightmare of Elm Street proportions.Rumiton (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then why did Jayen466 request comments from the Indian editors about this?  This subject is really angering me.  If adherents cannot even trust Hindi-speaking people on Wikipedia then I strongly suggest they stop editing this article altogether.  It appears that Rawat-adherents trust no one but pro-NRM/cult people and premies.  This has to stop on Wikipedia and now.   And btw, does Jayen466 speak, write, and read Hindi?  Does he have academic credentials as an expert on Eastern Religion and Hindi?  This thread is disgusting.  Rawat adherents are not showing even a modicum of good faith and trust of anyone but themselves here.  :(  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find Momento's comments to be offensive and bigoted.  Prem Rawat is an Indian-American.  There's no shame or suffering placed upon Prem Rawat in pointing that out in the article.  Nobody's branding Rawat because of his heritage.  I recommend strongly that this entire thread be removed immediately and without delay -- especially in this American-based website, lest any Indians or Indian-Americans happen upon this rubbish.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is quite alright to have the Hindi transliteration. I'd suggest we don't need to have it for the titles; that seems like overkill. But for his birth name, this is quite a standard thing to do in Wikipedia. See Vijay Amritraj etc. I'm sure the Hindi is fine (but I'll check on it). Jayen466 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hindi spelling of Prem Sal Singh Rawat is correct, but some of the other transliterations in this version were slightly off. So here are the corrected versions:

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत
• Balyogeshwar: बालयोगेश्वर
• Guru Maharaj Ji: गुरु महाराज जी
• Maharaji: महाराज जी (This is somewhat iffy; the transliteration I have provided assumes that Maharaji is just a non-phonetic spelling of Maharaj Ji)

You can double-check the devanagiri script  with editors at WP:RD/L. Again, I am not advocating for or against the inclusion of the transliterations; that can be decided by consensus here. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)(e/c)

• प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत does say Prem Pal Singh Rawat. I can't find a relevant policy or guideline on when to give names in foreign script. Is anyone else aware of one? If there isn't one, perhaps we should include a para on this in WP:MOSPN. I think general practice is to give the foreign spelling in cases where the individual was born and had their birth name registered in another country. In other words, for an American of Indian descent born in the United States we would not give a Devanagari spelling – even if all parts of the name are of Hindi origin and could easily be spelt in Devanagari – since the name was never officially registered in Devanagari. Jayen466 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO we don't need a special policy for foreign script.  Content in the article has to be agreed by consensus, and as almost all the editors here do not read hindu script there is no way we can reach consensus on whether the script is correct.  As far as I know, the script could read 'Opera Singer' or 'Olympic Athlete'.  I vote to keep the article in English.  --John Brauns (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with John Brauns. It was added without discussion and overwhelms the lead sentence.Momento (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Jayen466 has started a thread about this at Wikipedia talk:Proper names#Foreign personal names.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John, too. I knew I would one day. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be off-topic. This thread is about including the Hindi version of the subject's names/titles. Is that what you meant to respond to? If so you're not making any sense. Should this get moved to a more appropriate thread?   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Will, sorry, I made a mistake, it is the first time I make a mistake in 64 years, but it won't happen again. I moved it to the right place, they are next to each other and I am tired. --Pedrero (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of adding the original Hindi versions of the English transiterations, Jayen found the applicable content guideline. It says:

• The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't include the correct Hindi versions in the "childhood" section, along with the Hindi version of the subject's birth name in the intro?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure we have Devanagari versions for all of them, and it might be overkill. I'd prefer not having such a huge block of Hindi in the Childhood section. But I wouldn't be majorly upset if someone went out of their way to find out how you spell Balyogeshwar Param Hans Sant Ji Satgurudev etc. in Hindi and wanted to have that in the article.

As for the lede, I would lean towards having the Devanagari spelling of "Prem Pal Singh Rawat" at the beginning of the lede, in brackets after the Roman spelling of his name. That is more or less standard. Alternatively, it could go in the info box. But again, no big deal if we don't. Jayen466 22:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well let's start with the "Devanagari" spelling of the given name in the lede, since that's standard. I'll use the version added by Abecedare previously. As for the childhood section, it wouldn't be a block because those names/designations are scattered across a paragraph. (Strangely enough, there doesn't appear to be a Hindi version of this article, at   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't strange to me. Most Indian people I know would consider it insolence to dissect the life of their, or anyone else's, guru like this. Neither would they see the logic of reporting the words of "sources" who have no first-hand experience of the subject. As the influence of Macdonalds inevitably spreads, no doubt we will see this change. Rumiton (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's seems strange to me because the subject has been reported to have millions of current or former followers there. Avoiding creating a biography seems like an odd way of showing respect. Are we to assume then that the followers of Asaram Bapu have less respect for teir guru because he has an artilce in the Hindi Wikipedia? I don't know the answer to that one.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "first-hand experience of the subject", that's an interesting point. Mishler and Dettmer, two former employees with first-hand knowledge of the subject, have been discounted as sources while Cagan, who never met the subject, has been proposed as a good source. Maybe the folks in India, who prefer sources with first-hand experience, would have a different article than we do.   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And I continue to protest the insertion of a block of what to 99.9% of English-speaking readers is gibberish, in the first line of the article. Wikipedia guidelines should be creatively ignored when it results in a better article. Rumiton (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of Prem Rawat is gibberish? The article on Aristotle begins with his name in the original spelling, which is "Greek to me". I doubt that 99.9% of English-speaking readers can read Greek. On the other hand, I bet a far larger proportion of English-speakers can read Hindi, since Hindia and English are the two official languages of India. (As of 1990, 90 million people in India speak English, more than the combined populations of the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.) Since there is no Hindi article about subject, it's logical that some of those 90 million English speakers might come to this article to learn more about the subject. I don't see how omitting the proper, original spelling of the subject's name results in a better article.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Looking at English language, I see that between 500 million and 1.8 billion people speak English. If we take 1 billion as a middle value, and if we assume that at least 50 million of the 90 million English speakers in India also read Hindi, then 5% of English speakers can read Hindi, which is much higher than the .1% estimated by Rumiton.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice trying, but few of the Indian English speakers would have a computer. The overwhelming preponderance of readers here would make no sense at all of the script which is now in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't know what data you're using. It isn't necessary to own a computer to use one. In some parts of the world, ubiquitous internet cafes provide cheap access to computers. Second, among educated Indians, the ones most likely to speak both languages, computer use is over 36%.[9] Overall, the study found that 14% of Indians were internet users in early 2005. Fourteen percent of 1 billion is 140 million. And the number has certainly gone up since 2005. How many people use the internet in Australia? Even if it's all 20 million people in the country that's just a fraction of the people in India who have access to this article. Third, the guideline calls for adding this information and doesn't make any provision for making the decision based on how many people reading the article will be fluent in the native language of the subject. It applies to everyone, even those from places with only a few native speakers. Only 20 million people speak the Greek language, and even fewer speak both Greek and English. Is that a reason to delete the Greek spelling of Aristotle from that article?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New source

New to me, anyway. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, published by Greenwood Press. See here: [[10]]. Ron Geaves appears to have authored the Prem Rawat article, but I suggest that the source here is the publisher. Greenwood Press has an impeccable reputation for scholarly publishing, as they explain here: [[11]]. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-regarded and quite recent (2006) source: [12]. I think we should draw on it. Jayen466 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At $300 a set, who's going to the library to borrow one?Momento (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see much of it in Google Books, and I have a copy coming. ;-) Jayen466 22:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent.Momento (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Geaves, as has been much discussed (see next section on PR's birth year), is neither an unbiased nor a particular accurate source on Rawat. Msalt (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You may think Geaves is biased but that's your POV and OR. The Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" is an excellent source and will a welcome addition to this article.Momento (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are deeply misunderstanding Wikipedia if you think it is OR to question the reliability of a source. Geaves is by his own account a follower of this article's subject. Msalt (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Geaves has his own opinions, he is writing for Greenwood Press. They have to make sure anything they publish is defendable. They are the source, not Geaves. Rumiton (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to post links to all of the times that editors have questioned the reliability of individual writers (Magalwadi, Snell, etc.). But I'll restrain myself and simply say that evaluating the reliability of a source includes looking at both the writer and the publisher. WP:RS has the details, but nowhere does it say that the publisher is the sole factor in judging reliability.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" was published by Houghton and Mifflin, one of the most illustrious publishers in the world. Does that make Hitler (and everything in that book) reliable? Msalt (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does make the book reliable, but not Hitler. It is a reliable expression of the author's thoughts and beliefs. A lesser publisher might have added to or twisted the words to further their own agenda, but we can assume that what we read in H & M is an accurate translation of Hitler's writings. Yet Hitler was not a scholar, producing an intellectual analysis, and no one would go to MK looking for realistic information on Jews or the First World War etc. Mein Kampf (nb the "Mein" part) is one particularly disturbed individual's autobiography. Geaves is a scholar, writing an academic article for a scholarly publisher. I agree that he has made mistakes, and any highly controversial claims need to be scrutinised, but so far, I see none. It is pretty standard stuff, and useful. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point and good distinction, Rumiton. Similarly, I think we can trust Greenwood here to present an accurate depiction of Geaves' writing, but the authority for the reliability of what he writes falls upon him as the author. He remains a devotee of the subject who is prone to factual errors, and whose academic expertise is NOT on Rawat or his movement. And his publisher doesn't change that any more than Houghton and Mifflin made Hitler's arguments more reliable. Msalt (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The editors of that 5-volume work are very reputable scholars indeed. They invited Geaves to write the section on Rawat. It is not our job to second-guess the choices of leading academics, but to report what their works say. Note that if we were dealing with a Christian or Muslim scholar who had written a section on Christian or Islamic history in a similar work, we would not be having this discussion. Jayen466 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If I was editing a page on the history of the Catholic Church, I would certainly scrutinize the reliability of a Catholic scholar more closely (and I was raised Catholic, and have witnessed first hand that there is a tradition of internal criticism of the Church; but still I would scour that scholar's work for bias.) Our job is to judge the reliability of each of the article's (potential) sources, not the eminence of the source's publishers. Msalt (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is our job to second guess editorial and publishing actions as part of our responsibility to evaluate sources for reliability. Geaves is not only a scholar but is also one of the subject's earliest followers. That is substantially different from a scholar who is one of a billion Muslims or Catholics, religions that were started more than a thousand years ago. Anson Shupe, writing in a book also published by Greenwood (and so presumably just as reliable), says that the subject only had 1000 followers in the early 1970s in North America.[13] Further, there are well-developed fields of Islamic and Catholic scholarship dating back centuries that include a range of views (although some have been brutally supressed). How many other religion scholars are there who are students of this subject? Any? Another point is that ex-followers have been denigrated as sources here. I've seen the reliably-source views of ex-followers discounted as "disgruntled former employees" and similar terms. Why should it matter if a source is an ex-follower but not a follower? So, to repeat my earlier comment: As for Geaves, he is a reliable source, just not a neutral one. So long as we're aware of his bias, attribute his opinions, and note discrepancies with other sources then I don't see a problem. But I don't think we should use it wholesale the way we might use a more neutral source like Downton or Melton.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is our job to report significant views in proportion to their prevalence in the most reliable sources. Gallagher, one of the editors of this book, is one of the most highly esteemed religious scholars alive today [14][15] and is (or has been until recently, not sure) a member of the board of the American Academy of Religion, widely considered one of the most prestigious bodies of religious scholars in the world [16]. Certainly, where other sources contradict Geaves writing in Gallagher/Ashcraft, we should note this, but the 22 pages by Geaves in Gallagher/Ashcraft (2006) are the most detailed and up-to-date scholarly source we have on Rawat. Note though that there is also a chapter on Rawat, again by Geaves, in New Religions: A Guide. New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, by J. Gordon Melton and Christopher Partridge (2004), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195220420. Jayen466 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that Geaves' chapter on Rawat does not strike me as unduly hagiographical, on the contrary, it comes across as pretty sober and no more sympathetic than many other scholars' accounts of movements that they are not part of. But also note what Gallagher says here. This is a statement that reflects mainstream present-day scholarship in this area. Jayen466 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've learned over years of editing articles on religious figures and movements is that facts which appear neutral or minor to outsiders can have tremendous importance to followers. This isn't just about new religious movements - major Christian schisms revolved around such seemingly little issues as whether it's "the Holy Ghost, the Father, and the Son", or "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". So the fact that a piece doesn't appears "hagiographic" at a casual read isn't the same as saying it provides a neutral account of events.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Given how long we have argued over including bleeding Balyogeshwar, I'm inclined to agree with the first half of your statement. As for the second half, Geaves does not have to be "neutral" by any editor's criteria, just prevalent in the most reliable sources. Greenwood and Oxford University Press qualify for that. Jayen466 21:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Only part of this source is available online (thanks for the link) but even in that I see reason to be concerned, both about the editors and about Geaves. I see a lot of highly positive (if not quite hagiographical) description and little or no criticism. More to the point, both the editor and Geaves are not straightforward about Geaves' status as a long term and significant disciple of Rawat's.

The editor says simply "He (Geaves) has known Rawat since 1969..." (p250); Geaves writes in his history of Rawat that "In 1969 he attracted the attention of four English travellers to India... excited by his teachings they invited him to Great Britain. ....From 1969 to 1971, North American visitors to India discovered the young guru and became his students." (p65) So apparently Geaves was one of the first few dozen Western disciples of Rawat, and likely one of the first four (since he is British) -- yet he does not acknowledge this in his article or credits. I find this disturbing and a clear violation of scholarly openness, which casts doubt on the reliability of what he writes. Msalt (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rawat birth year

• Francis mentioned in his edit summary that Geaves gives the year of birth as 1958, rather than 1957. That's puzzling indeed, since Geaves also gives 1958 in the Oxford University Press-published New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. Pretty much everyone else says 1957. Does Geaves know something no one else does, or has the same typo slipped into two books? Jayen466 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether Geaves knows something no one else knows is irrelevant (probably unintended but reads somewhat like an invitation to OR...) - the only question is whether the birth year given by Geaves warrants a standard procedure in the sense of "most sources say X (with at least three refs from not mutually related sources); exceptionally a source says Y (followed by Geaves ref(s))" - under the circumstances, and knowing Geaves has other errors probably not worth mentioning, I'd go for the WP:UNDUE stance (i.e. Geaves' variation of the birth year not worth mentioning), notwithstanding that Geaves is a prominent Rawat scholar. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Prem Rawat was born in 1957. Geaves made an error. Evidence of this is that in 2007 premies around the world celebrated Rawat's 50th birthday. Geaves makes many errors in his papers on this subject. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar RfC

The subject has been referred to with a number of titles and honorifics during his life. The longest version was "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj", but he was also referred to simply as "Balyogeshwar". The term means "born Lord of the Yogis". It was primarily used in the subject's youth, a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru. In the 1980s he dropped several titles and is no longer referred to as "Balyogeshwar". The most recent source using it is from 1986 1996. Balyogeshwar redirects to this article. The question here is whether we should include the name in the lead, and if so how should we refer to it. 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PR was known in the west first as Guru Maharaj Ji and since 1983 he is known as Maharaji. He was known in India primarily as Guru Maharaj Ji and affectionately as Sant Ji when a child by family and close associates but not by followers. Balyogeshwar was used in India to identify Rawat when he was a child guru. It was never used in the west. The 1986 reference was published by a Hindu fundamentalist group and uses the term in a derogatory fashion, referring to Rawat as "Balogeshwar GuruJi", Guruji also being a title never used by Rawat or his followers. Balyogeshwar was a minor title from 40 years ago that has no place in the lead. But most importantly, the lead sentence refers to Rawat in the present tense. It says he is a teacher. To say Rawat is known as "Balyogeshwar" is completely false.Momento (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One option is to split the list and decide which names and titles belong where. Something like "..., currently known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj, ... is". Or we could spin it all out into a sentence on its own. Something like "Prem Rawat is [claim to notability]. He is also known as... and was formerly ..." Many reliable sources say he dropped "GMJ" in the early 1980s, but I'm not sure which ones go into more detail than that.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the prefix Bal- means born in the sense of "recently born", i.e. a child or baby. Examples: Here is Balganesh (baby Ganesh), here is Balhanuman (baby Hanuman), here is Balkrishna (baby Krishna).

Yogeshwar (> yoga + ishwara) on its own means "Lord of (Mystical) Union" and is one of the names of Krishna: [17].

So just like Balganesh (Bal+Ganesh) is "young Krishna", so "Balyogeshwar" (Bal+Yogeshwar) is "young lord of union", or, to someone familiar with Hinduism, "little Krishna" (as a boy, Rawat often wore a Krishna costume at special events). The subject received the name Balyogeshwar as a honorific when, at age 8, he became his father's spiritual successor. As it is a child's name, and as such has not been used by the subject for decades, my contention is that we should not have a wording that implies that it is his name today (he is, after all, in his 50s). Otherwise I don't care if we have it in the lead or the Childhood section of his bio. Jayen466 00:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The translation "born Lord of the Yogis" is cited to Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and follower of the subject. It also appears in the Washington Post. What is the source for your translation? That name has been used for the subject as recently as 1986, when the subject was 29, well after he was no longer a child. Some childhood names are used throughout life. For example, Baby Doc Duvalier.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget Baby Jake Matlala. :-) You're right, sometimes people keep their childhood names into adulthood, but that does not seem to be the case here, at least no longer. The authorised biography mentions nothing about Rawat calling himself Balyogeshwar these days. Also see Macdonnell Sanskrit dictionary: "yogesvara (p. 247) [ yoga-îsvara ] m. lord of mystic power; adept in magic." (yoga = union, connection, etc.; isvara = ruler, lord, prince, king.) From the same dictionary: "bala (p. 193) [ 1. bâla ] a. young, not yet full-grown; recently risen (sun), early (rays), new, crescent (moon); childish, puerile, foolish; m. child, boy; minor (under sixteen years of age)]. Here is "Save the Children India", in Hindi it is called Bal Raksha Bharat. Bharat is India, Raksha is Protection, Bal is Child. I've asked Nichalp, who's an Indian bureaucrat, if he can stop by and help, as it seems we may be struggling with a language barrier. Jayen466 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual meaning of the name doesn't really matter since we don't include a translation in the article. Many names have meanings that aren't literally true for the people who use them. Was the subject ever the "Lord of the Yogis"?   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual meaning of the name DOES really matter, as not all Wikipedia readers are as wilfully ignorant of foreign languages as some editors here. (Did you get my little joke?) Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The semi-official Cagan biography (p. 90, written by an American) gives the translation as "Child master of yogis". I think the "master of yogis" is crap, but at least the "child" is right. Did you hear of the "water sheep"? It was a Russian's translation of "hydraulic ram". Jayen466 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, Yogeshwar does not mean "Lord of yogis", it means "lord of union"; it means someone who, according to Eastern religious thought, has achieved mastery of an inner state in which he no longer sees himself as separate from creation (that's advaita, non-two-ness). Jayen466 01:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning of the title (and discounting Cagan as an questionable source), we all agree that it is not used currently in the West. (It may be used in India - see below). The current construction is "also known as". I don't think that necessarily implies that it is an appelation in current use. I'm trying to think of other biography subjects who have names or nicknames that they no longer use which we could use as examples.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We agreed that Cagan is a reliable source for names of family members and such. If you contend that Balyogeshwar is presently used in India, please bring evidence of that. Let's be clear that the use of self-published sources by the subject of an article is permissible per WP:SELFQUEST. Now let's not get into the whole rigmarole of whether Cagan is self-published or promotional: If it comes to questions such as "what name or honorific does the subject use today in his self promotion", then Cagan is the most reliable source we have. Jayen466 11:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed to that. Given that Cagan's book is inaccurate and filled with errors on so many things, including never mentioning the name Divine Light Mission in the entire book, then her book is certainly not credible as a source for Balyogeshwar or anything else. We discussed this at great length almost a year ago. The constant rehashing of old issues isn't helpful. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not simply a matter of his chldren's names, which is all I remember agreeing to. This is about history, and Cagan is not a historian. She asserts chronology of use (first Sant Ji, then Balyogeshwar, then GMJ) which directly contradicts other sources without citing any sources for the discrepancy. Cagan is not a reliable source for this.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Which sources does she contradict? The Encyclopedia Indica says he received the name Balyogeshwar when he took over from his dad; have you a source that says categorically he was not called Sant Ji before age 8? Jayen466 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have more than one source that shows he was using "Sant Ji" well after the death of his father, long after he'd adopted "GMJ" and even after he'd been declared an adult.[18][19]   Will Beback  talk  06:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this undated (and unsigned) review of a 1993 book appears to refer to the subject as "Balyogeshwar Guruji".[20] Balyogeshwar may be more common in India, perhaps because Maharaji is used to refer to many different people.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He was never "declared an adult," this is more tricky word use. How could anyone be declared an adult when still a youth? He was "granted emancipated minor status." He never used these names after his teenage years. What's the fuss about? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Prem's father was called Shri Hans Maharaj and also Yogiraj, king of the yogis. Maharaji is a shortening of Maharaj-ji, Maha=great, raj=king. "Ji" is a suffix denoting respect. I think his father accepted (rather than used) all his life those names, which were the expression of his followers respect and devotion, as has been traditional in yoga for thousands of years. Followers always felt respect and devotion. But Prem did not do the same as his father, and expressly said how he liked to be addressed and how he did not. So it should be clearly said when and where and who used those names, and not "Prem IS also known as", because that is not true. What is true is that Prem WAS also known as "Whatever Name or Title" at a certain time, in a certain place, by certain people. As I see it, what is important is the names followers use, not what the media used or said. And not what anti-Prem sites still obsessively use or say.Pedrero (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is bringing up the "anti-Prem" sites, so not to worry. We only know what followers call the subject based on what is reported in reliable sources, i.e. the media and scholars. We know he signed his name as "Sant Ji" for at least one period of time, though for some reason that's not in the article any longer. We don't say "Prem Rawat is also known as XYZ...", we currently say "Prem Rawat, also known as XYZ, is..." As you point out, the differnt names had different periods, the exact timing and meaning of which should be explained in the text not in the first sentence of the article.   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The most recent source using it is from ...

Above it is written "...The most recent source using it is from 1986...". This is incorrect. Already ***TRICE*** I linked to this previous discussion, POINTING OUT that that previous discussion contains a link to a more recent source. That source is this 1996 University of Chicago book.

So my reproach that the community only succeeds in making a lot of noise, preferring that over a careful reading of previous discussion and previously given sources, still stands.

The above "In the 1980s he [...] is no longer referred to as "Balyogeshwar"" is incorrect, and I do protest that this platitude is used again in a discussion, despite legion references to previous discussions where this was demonstrated to be incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A scholar referring to a historical appellation means nothing. An academic writing today that the young Cassius Clay beat Sonny Liston is not a sufficient basis for us writing that "Muhammad Ali, also known as Cassius Clay, is a former world heavyweight boxing champion ..." Even though everyone knows that Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali are two names of the same person, it would be extremely churlish to insist that all reference to the fact that he no longer uses the name Cassius Clay should be deleted from his BLP, and profoundly vexatious to insist that this would be justified by a reliable source that used his old name in describing his early career.

Rawat's biography states clearly, on page xx, "As a child, Prem had been called Sant Ji, then Balyogeshwar (child master of yogis), and later Guru Maharaj Ji. Today he is known around the world either as Maharaji or Prem Rawat."

I am sorry, a book, even a scholarly book, writing about events in the seventies, using historical terminology, is not the most reliable source for what the subject is called today. (Btw, the book you mention is useful for details about Satpal's present-day movement; I posted it to the DLM talk page the other day.) Cheers, Jayen466 11:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing I find potentially offensive about this list of names is the suggestion of multiple aliases, something which is common in many cultures but in the West is often taken to be evidence of wrongdoing. The article needs to avoid this suggestion. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC) I also believe "speaker on the subject of inner peace" best describes what he does. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not even potentially offensive or biased to include all titles and names that Prem Rawat has ever been known by, especially because there are reliable sources for them. "A/K/A" or "also known as" is a commonly-used English language abbrev./term that connotes nothing negative or positive. I spent a bit of time online this morning researching "a/k/a" and "also known as," and it's such a ubiquitous abbrev./term that there's not much written about it online other than definitions stating that: "a/k/a" means "also known as." It's neutral in legal dictionaries. Maybe you've been watching too many "Law and Order" or true crime tv shows.  :):) I never see it as a negative-connoting term. The one thing I did learn about this is that "a/k/a" is used for current and past names or titles of an individual or entity, i.e., corporation. It's a completely neutral abbrev./term. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Muhammad Ali (born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., January 17, 1942 in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.) is a retired American boxer and former three-time World Heavyweight Champion.

Not only that, but the article, properly in my opinion, refers to him as "Clay" until the point in his life when he changes names.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Will, it does say "born" Cassius Clay. Not "Muhammad Ali, also known as Cassius Clay, is a retired ..." I think you are quite aware of the difference, so let's stop playing cat and mouse. :-) Jayen466 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

I came here after reading Jayen466's post on India Noticeboard, and am confused about the issue under dispute.Is it:

1. What is a "correct" meaning of Balyogeshwar ?
2. Is Balyogeshwar the current appelation of Prem Rawat ?
3. Should Balyogeshwar be mentioned in the lede ?

If the exact issue can be clarified, others and I may be able to better address it. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the RfC, The question here is whether we should include the name in the lead, and if so how should we refer to it. The meaning of the name is disputed, but since we don't translate it in the text it's not important. (Should we give a definition?) There is some question over whether the subject has been called that in India more recently than in the West, but there's really no dispute over whether it's in current use. I think we all agree that it's a former name.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The first two questions above are matter of real-world facts; while the third is simply a matter of wikipedia style. By that measure, the relevant question is not whether Balyogeshwar is a current name of Prem Rawat (wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source), but whether it was ever a commonly used name/title of the person, in which case, readers should be informed of the fact. Especially for this article's subject, whose notability arose at a very early age, a title used during those years may be quite significant.

A second issue to consider, given that this is a BLP, is whether this was a self-selected/accepted title or if it is one used by "detractors" during that time (say, like Tricky Dick). Note that the appellation Balyogeshwar inherently has no negative connotations in Hindi/India (unlike, Tricky Dick). Assuming, that Prem Rawat's followers used this title when he was young, I don't see any reason not to mention it in the lead sentence/paragraph. Abecedare (talk)

I forgot to address the point of how to mention it: I would keep it simple as in the current version, "also known as ...". If there are reliable sources, which positively claim that Prem Rawat stopped using or rejected the name in later years, then we should word it as "previously known as ..." But we should not make the "previously known" claim based on "absence of evidence" of use of the name in recent publications; that is skating close to original research. I would also recommend that we don't provide a meaning/translation of the name (at least in the lead), because there are many possible literal and allusive translations.

Aside: I really don't see why this issue is at all controversial. As I said above, Balyogeshwar is a term of respect, and not an insult of any form. You'll find many Indians with given names of Balyogi, Yogeshwar, Ishwar etc. Abecedare (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is one of grammar. "Balyogeshwar" was bearable in the lead when the first sentence said "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji, became guru to 3 million people in India at the age of eight". It suggests the past. But Rawat dropped the title "Guru" and all Hindu aspects of his teachings in the early 80s in order to remove any cultural barriers to his message. With the lead changed to say "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji,[2][3][4] is a teacher of a meditation practice called Knowledge", it suggest that he "is" currently known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and "Balyogeshwar". Thus ignoring the fact that he deliberately moved away from Indian titles in the 80s. The best alternative is "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaji) is a speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace". The lead should reflect the article and Rawat moving away from Indian traditions is a major part of his story.Momento (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you are reading too many implied meanings and connotations, which are not apparent to me and, I presume, any outside reader. The lead to an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a CV) should talk about what the person is chiefly known for (For example, "Andre Agassi is a retired tennis player"; not "Andre Agassi is a businessman and philanthropist".) Therefore I would recommend simply beginning the article, ""Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji, is a spriritual teacher. He became a Guru ... In later years ..." But I'll let the regular editors hammer out the details of the lead amongst themselves. My aim was to simply respond to the RFC/post on WT:INB and I have done that above. Let me know if I can add any clarification on that specific issue. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, but "Maharaji" replaced "Guru Maharaj ji" in the 80s so that should be indicated with "known as Maharaj Ji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji)" and Balyogeshwar was a childhood name. Google Prem Rawat & Balyogeshwar you get <300 hits (most using Wiki as the source) Google Prem Rawat & Maharaji you >75,000. Balyogeshwar isn't important enough to be in the lead.Momento (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Googlehits aren't a good estimate for much of anything. We've already seen that this "childhood" name has been used as recently as 1996, when the subject was in his 40s. It appears that it is ised more frequently in India than in the West. Abecedare's views seems sound. The point of an RfC is to get outside comments. I'm not sure why the addition of Hindi equivalents was reverted. Does anyone have a problem with those?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, used in 1996 by an American scholar writing about 1970s events in 1970s terms. As for use of Balyogeshwar in India, Cagan mentions that when his brother had pictures of Rawat and his wife kissing put in the papers, the name Balyogeshwar was used, but that again was in the seventies and I see no evidence of current use in India whatsoever. Show me one Indian newspaper article from this century, or from the nineties, for that matter, using Balyogeshwar. As for the Hindi transliterations, I don't have a problem with those; he was born Indian, his first language was Indian, and he still has followers in India. Jayen466 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for commenting. I have no problem with mentioning the title, be it in the childhood section or the lead or both, and agree that it should be mentioned. Now his authorised biography says,

  "As a child, Prem had been called Sant Ji, then Balyogeshwar (child master of yogis), and later Guru Maharaj Ji. Today he is known around the world either as Maharaji or Prem Rawat."

• And that is confirmed by a general absence of these titles in more recent sources. All I would like to make clear in the lede, as we do in Muhammad Ali, for example, and did here, is the difference between current and defunct appellations. Jayen466 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• This source says exactly the same as Cagan: Sant Ji while his father was still alive, then Balyogeshwar, later Guru Maharaj Ji, and now neither of those. It is authoritative, so let's stop the nonsense. Jayen466 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Let's stop the nonsense"? If that's what Cagan says then Cagan is wrong, and if Geaves says the same thing then he is wrong too. There are numerous issues of And It Is Divine, along with other documents, that the subject signs as "Sant Ji", a decade five years or more after the death of the subject's father. But I think that Abecedare, who replied to cnavassing by Jayen, gives a reasonable view. We're writing about the subject's entire life, including the 1960 and '70s.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • This is the sequence in which he got the names. I have never said – nor do Cagan or Geaves – that he stopped using Sant Ji as soon as he started being called Balyogeshwar or Guru Maharaj Ji: we all know that several of these were used in parallel for quite some time. It is plain though that he has stopped using those names and rejects them today. So what exactly is the problem in indicating that? Jayen466 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Let's see if any other outside editors have opinions.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is perfectly alright to add 'Balyogeshwar' which simply means Child Yogi, as it is done, right now! It is only when a person takes Sanyas (renunciation) do all their previous names became defunct, as in the case of Swami Vivekananda and Swami Sivananda etc. --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The important point is not what Balyogeshwar might mean, or even whether it is in use today. Wikipedia revolves around notability. Prem Rawat was most notable in the early 1970s, by all accounts. He was known as Balyogeshwar then and well after that time period. Therefore, it is useful and in fact important that we connect this name to him, since the essence of any Wikipedia article is to communicate the notability of the the subject. Msalt (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, only with implying that he still uses the name today. As a historical name, of course it's fine to mention it. Jayen466 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Does anyone see a compelling reason why we should not start the article as follows, and as suggested by Will several dozen kB earlier:

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known by the title Maharaji (previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar), is ...

• This reflects that the last two titles are no longer in use. Comments? Jayen466 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, and has the advantage of being true. Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree too, this wording reflects the truth. Even better would be ... (previously also known as Balyogeshwar until 8 years old, and thereafter Guru Maharaji, names abandoned in the eighties), is...". So it seems we finally got it. Where is the champagne bottle?--. I am Pedrero, but I cannot sign, my new laptop does not get my name, it still does not recognize me. 15.30 1 Feb 2009
• "Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji, and formerly known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji, is..." would be most accurate based on reliable sources (excluding Cagan). I'm puzzled as to why this has become so contentious because none of these terms are at all negative, quite the contrary, they are reverent, respectful Hindu titles and have always been used with great affection by adherents. The WP:NPF policy states that for people like Prem Rawat who are not well known in the present day, but are notable because they once were well-known (enough to warrant a biography page, then material only relevant to their notability should be used in their BLP. Prem Rawat/Maharaji has not had any name-recognition since the 1970s. It's not the fault of editors that Rawat stays removed from mainstream media and doesn't give interviews to anyone unless he approves of the interviewer, with the caveat that they first have a favorable view of him (That's want it says in various FAQs). And it doesn't matter if Rawat "rejected" these names, "dropped Indian trappings," or if his adherents don't like the use of these monikers in this article. The article must be written NPOV with reliable sources. Otherwise, it's POV-pushing based on assumptionsn of what Rawat does or doesn't want, etc.. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen's version. Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar are not current names. I don't think Sant Ji should be included as it is was mainly used by his family.Momento (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-inserted the brackets Francis removed. He is known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India. A bit longer but the truth.Momento (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"verifiability not truth" --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says "Rawat was called Balyogeshwar in the west" and revert until you do so.Momento (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did. Already ***FOUR TIMES*** I linked to this previous discussion, POINTING OUT that that previous discussion contains a link to a late 20th century Western source for Balyogeshwar. That source is this 1996 University of Chicago book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Sant Ji", that is how he signed his And It Is Divine editorials and DLM memoes that I've seen. Even if it was used within the family (how would we know?) it was also used publicly by the subject himself. It should be included somewhere in the article. I suggest that we add a couple of sentences to the childhood section to explain the names/titles "Balyogeshwar" and "Sant Ji". We could both translate their meaning and explain their use, to the extent that we have sources for those issues.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a mention in the Childhood section would be useful. Jayen466 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji can be covered in the Childhood section. It doesn't need to be in the lead.Momento (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the umptieth time, Balyogeshwar is a redirect to Prem Rawat, then per Wikipedia convention that alternative name should be in the lede (per the "principle of least surprise"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Balyogeshwar" is not an "alternative name" it is a defunct title and doesn't need to be in the lead and where is the source that says "Balyogeshwar" was used in the West?Momento (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis is right, Momento. See also the New York Times. Jayen466 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of those three NYT quotes come from India. And "Divine Enterprise By Lise McKean" that Francis refers to was written in India and uses local names. Having a few people mention Balyogeshwar in the west doesn't make it common usage which should be the criteria for the lead.Momento (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OR should not be something to base a lede upon, nor anything else in Wikipedia, and certainly not any content of a BLP. Agree with Will below (the point about the onus being on the one wanting to include an assertion in main namespace, not on the one wanting to keep it out). Please also provide a source for your contention that Divine Enterprise by Lise McKean was *written* in India (the preface of the book seems to suggest it was rather *written* outside India based on *fieldwork* performed in India)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

She spent 14 months in Haridwar and she is writing about her time there. She mentions Balyogeshwar while describing Sat Pal in the present tense. We have multiple sources from India mentioning Balyogeshwar but the only one, that I know of, of a westerner writing in the west using the title is Simon Zalkind of the NYT who called Rawat "Guru Maharaj Ji" in the first paragraph and I don't have access to the rest of the article. The preponderance of evidence and sources clearly show that Balyogeshwar is a Hindi title, coined in Rawat's youth in India before he came to the west as Guru Maharaj Ji but little used in the west. It is beyond dispute that Rawat referred to himself as Guru Maharaj Ji but no evidence that he ever referred to himslef as Balyogeshwar. Therefore it is incorrect to equate Balyogeshwar with Guru Maharaj JI as a previously used titles. Common sense says it should be stated that it was a title used in India.Momento (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see a source for saying that the title/name has only been used in India. "Guru Maharaj Ji" is also a Hindi title/name that was used in India. All of the subject's names/titles are Hindi derived and all have been used in both India and the West, so far as I know. .   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a source to say it's only been used in India. The only sources we have say it is used in India. You need a source to say it has been commonly used in the west.Momento (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But other names/titles have also been used in India, haven't they? That's the distinction you're trying to make.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All sources agree that Rawat's birth name is Prem Pal Singh Rawat. All sources agree that he was called Sant Ji by his father (and signed that name up until he was 16 approx). All sources agree that when his father died Rawat took the same title as his father, Guru Maharaj Ji. All sources agree that he was also called Balyogeshwar in India to distinguish him from all the other Guru Maharaj Ji's. All sources agree that when Rawat came to the west at 13, the title he used was Guru Maharaj Ji. All advertising and DLM publications refer only to Guru Maharaj Ji, never to Balyogeshwar. All sources agree that in the early 80s he dropped the title "Guru" and became "Maharaj Ji". So why is there a disagreement to make it clear that his given name is Prem Rawat and the only title he has used in the West was Guru Maharaj Ji, and then later Maharaji. Sant Ji ended nearly 40 years ago and Balyogeshwar was current in India when he was young.Momento (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rahter than saying "All sources agree" over and over, can you compile some kind of chart or list for which sources say what? I don't think that "all sources agree" on all of these points - most never mention them, and others give different answers. For example, we have several sources that say his full name was Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. To save time, do we need a chart or list to confirm that Prem Pal Singh Rawat is his birth name? I don't think it is necessary. Do we need a chart or list to confirm that he took the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" when he became a guru? I don't think it is necessary. Do we need a chart or list to confirm that he used that title when he came to the west and that it was used in all DLM publications and press releases to the exclusion of all others? I don't think it is necessary. Do we need a chart or list to confirm that in the early 80s he dropped the title "Guru" and used the title "Maharaj Ji" exclusively? I think not. So the first chart or list we need is the one that determines when, where and who used the title Balyogeshwar. Agreed?Momento (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If we want to add an assertion that Balyogeshwar has only been used in India then we need a source which says that. I have seen any source that makes that assertion. That's the only topic of this RfC.   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia. If a name is popular in a country of over 1 billion people then that's sufficient reason to mention it in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant for the question at hand. The question is, do we have (a) source(s) that confirm(s) "also known as (...) Balyogeshwar in India", that is: without giving undue weight to that country's name: if the same name with which the subject is/was indicated is/was used (significantly enough) outside that country, it would be undue weight to name only India, and not the other countries where that name was used too. Better to name no country anyway, than naming one and being careless about verifiability I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As for inclusion of Balyogeshwar in the lede, the fact that Balyogeshwar is a redirect to this article, and is neither a "frequent typo" nor any other type of trivial redirect suffices: neither a single, nor a billion Indians could change that state of the art application of the principle of least surprise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If Momento waqnts to assert that "Balyogeshwar" is only used in India then he needs to find a source for that. The burden isn't on those who question the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And here it is. "An Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" says Rawat was called Sant Ji by his father's followers and Balyogeshawar by the Indian public on account of his age. I think that solves this issue once and for all.Momento (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied below. #Related thread (previously started in other section) (This discussion seems to have become split among several threads for no good reason.)   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Related thread (previously started in other section)

Hello, Wikibrothers as whether for and against anything we are brothers as sons of God or of mother earth, or of the Big Bang or of all three, my almost humble opinion is that it is not necessary to mention the names of Prem's childhood, but I do not care if they are mentioned as long as it is said he expressly asked followers not to used them in whichever year that was. I agree with keeping the bio in English only, therefore, Indian names should be left out. Another reason: I have today discovered that in YouTube there are many videoclips about Prem, a few against and most parts of speeches, I had no idea, and under Prem Rawat there are some 1200, under Sant Ji they are all about other people with the same name and under Balyogeshwar none, that means nobody knows those names nor I think people in general are interested in that. I think perhaps many of the new premies have never heard those names, they have not been used for decades. But if you have so much nostalgia of the seventies as I have you may leave them, why not? Just say it belongs to the past so it won't be a half truth. I have solved the Wiki-signature problem in my laptop just like an adult.--Pedrero (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, this is the thread on whether to use Hindi letters for Hindi terms, not on whether to include alternate names and titles. Perhaps you meant to respond to a different section.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, it is a good reminder, but as I see it, they are titles rahter than names, I do not know if anyone ever asked him "Can you wait a minute, Balyogeshwar?" so it is something like saying "Tony Blair, also known as Prime Minister...", or "Cassius Clay, also known as World Champion and Mohammed Ali..."--Pedrero (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether these are names or titles is murky. We have many sources that say the subject's name included "Balyogeshwar".   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Prem Pal Rawat Singh is his legal name. Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji and Balyogeshwar are titles. Sant Ji is a nickname. And it is important to know the difference as "alternate names" are fine in the lead.Momento (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for "Sant Ji" being a nickname rather than a title? What is the source for "Balyogeshwar" being a title rather than a nickname?   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is any murky doubt between a person and his diploma, John Smith and the engineer or doctor Laureate, or Linda Smith and Miss Universe, etc. Most sources are journalists looking for sensationalism and scholars all knowing little or nothing of yoga and India, that is why there are so many misunderstanding and misconceptions, it is not so much ignorance about Prem, but ignorance about yoga and India. Media a reliable source? It must be a joke. Only 4 % US media mentions that Palestinians live under military occupation. Only 4 % away (or near) from the reliable media nazis, communists, etc. had.>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, when Rawat gets any kind of an academic degree (he never made it past the 8th grade) and that info gets published, we'll be sure to add it into the article. Meanwhile, you're off-topic again. This has nothing to do with knowledge or ignorance of yoga practices or Hindu terminology. This is an article about the leader of a specific NRM which has its own set of beliefs and practices and terminiology as set forth by reliable sources, i.e., published material by academics and journalists. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The scholars most familiar with India use "Balyogeshwar" to refer to the subject (see discussion below). In any case, we don't need to distinguish between titles and names in the lead, as both are used for him.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we need to be very clear what's a name and what's a title. Guidelines say we should include "alternative names" in the lead. If Balyogeshwar isn't a name, and it isn't, it has no place in the lead. "An Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" says Rawat was called Sant Ji by his father's followers and Balyogeshawar by the Indian public on account of his age. I think that's clear.Momento (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. The details of where and when the various names were used is too much info for the lead, but we can add those details in the text, probably in the "childhood" section. Since we now have a source for him being called "Sant Ji" by around 3 million people we should probably add that to that lead along with the other alternate names.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the time and nature of Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar can't be explained in the lead then they shouldn't go in the lead. It is obvious that the most important names by far are his birth name, Prem Pal Singh Rawat and the two titles that he has used and been known as all his life, Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji. Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar can go in the childhood section where they belong.Momento (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't explain his change over to "Maharaji" in the lead either. All the alternate names should go in the lead, per the guideline that Jayen found, WP:UE:

• The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to simply following the Wikipedia standards, which have been endorsed by the outside editors in the RFC.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar and the principle of least surprise

In view of the fact that Balyogeshwar seems to be in use as a given name, and that there has been at least one other "enlightened child" called Balyogeshwar [21], we could make Balyogeshwar a disambiguation page and state there that its most prominent use is as a name applied to Prem Rawat; that would obviate the need to include Balyogeshwar in the lead here and might be a workable compromise. We could then mention the name in the Childhood section instead. Some more background:* The most recent Western source using Balyogeshwar that I could find is a German one from 2006. This uses Balyogeshwar by itself, without mentioning any of the other names: [22].

• There are 78 references to Balyogeshwar in google books, and they all seem to be about Rawat: [23] (Just as an aside, not all sources are agreed he is called Prem Pal Singh Rawat. A number of them assert his name is Pratap Singh Prawat.)*Page views for the Balyogeshwar page, however, are fairly minor, struggling in some months to break into double figures: [24]. Jayen466 09:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the "other" Balyogeshwar notable enough for an article? Even aside from the redirect, the fact that several sources refer to the subject almost exclusively as "Balyogeshwar" seems like a good enough reason to include the name/title in the lead. One of the books in your Google search, Ramparts, says, "Like other Indians, he was given two names at birth: Pratap Singh Rawat, and Balyogeshwar." [25]   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) No, I don't think so. (2) One could certainly see it that way. (3) Yes, I saw that, but am more inclined to trust the Encyclopedia Indica on that one. (But then again, who knows ...) Jayen466 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Onpedia claims his real name is Balyogeshwar Param Hans Shri Sant Ji Maharaj. A lot of these sources are casting doubt on their own sincerity as researchers. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few sources, especially from the early 1970s, list that as his name. Since they had little opportunity to discover that on their own, I'd guess that it was told to them by DLM press agents. For example:

• He is called Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj—hardly a name likely to become a household word. A little over a year ago only a handful of people outside India knew who he was. But last fortnight, when Guru Maharaj Ji (as he is short-titled) flew from the U.S. to New Delhi to celebrate a three-day festival in honor of his late guru father, he was accompanied by seven jumbo jets filled with new followers from the West.
  • "Junior Guru", TIME Monday, Nov. 27, 1972
• Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudey Shri Sant Ji Maharaj - the 15-year-old so-called boy god arrived in Britain yesterday to a welcome from 800 devotees who thronged London Airport...For his part, the luxury-loving holy boy, Guru Maharaj Ji, for short, hopes to double his British following of 6,000 - doubtless boosting the amount they pay for the privilege of seeing the Divine Light.
  • "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life", Richard Herd, Daily Mail, July 12, 1973
• The Guru's full name, with title, is Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji. According to the records of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, he was born Prem Pal Singh Rawat in Hardwar, India on December 10, 1957.
  • CURRENT BIOGRAPHY 1974

Onpedia's article is obviously a mirror of this article, presumably from 2005 or earlier.[26]   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that Param Hans (= Paramahansa) is yet another spiritual title. Jayen466 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If Param Hans is a title so is as Balyogeshwar, therefore they are not names, a name is a name and a title is a title, that is why it is wrong to say Prem Rawat, also known as... ", which to me is exactly the same as Tony Blair also known as Prime Minister or Cassius Clay also known as World Champion. At least you also have to say "also known by the honorary titles...".--Pedrero (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the 78 mentions more than half are written by Indians or in India. Of the ones written or published by westerners fewer than 10 are newer than 25 years old and that includes Cagan and in most of those Balyogeshwar appears as either part of a title (often incorrect) or in an historical context. It is clear from this list that Balyogeshwar was not a widespread name for Rawat in the west.Momento (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To Pedrero and Momento: both assertions (that Balyogeshwar is a title rather than a name and that it is used in India but not the West) need direct sources if we're going to put them in the article.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero is correct. Unless some one can provide a source that says Rawat was named Balyogeshwar by his parents at birth, it's a title and therefore unsuitable for the lead.Momento (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Maharaji" is a title as well. I'm not aware of any policy that says titles, even former titles mostly used in India, are inappropriate to include in leads. Please point to the one you're thinking of.   Will Beback  talk  16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this discussion page has entered the theatre of the aburd. Once again: Prem Pal Singh Rawat is Rawat's given and legal name. All others are a/k/a's or "also known as" aliases, that include Balyogeshwar, Sant Ji, Guru Maharaj Ji, and Maharaji, plus everything else he has ever been known as. Once again, all of those aliases are properly covered under the "also know as" term, and they are his current or previously known aliases. What is the big deal about this already. Can someone please answer for once?!? I simply cannot wait until we get back to the discussion about what Rawat actually is or what he does.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine Clinton had been a little childish or childlike in school and his classmates called him Billy the Kid. His Wiki bio would of course say: "Bill Clinton, also known as Billy the Kid, was President of the US from...". In the seventies even premies could hardely pronounce and remember the name Balyogeshwar, if they knew it, let alone know its meaning, which I have just learned here. I can't understand why that is so important, I suppose most young premies don't know it either. --Pedrero (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to sources, premies in the US had trouble pronouncing even "Guru Maharaj Ji", compressing it to "Goom Rodgie". But Momento has found a source which says that Balyogeshwar was mostly used in India, so the pronunciation in the US is not a concern. Regarding Bill Clinton, he used to have the title of president, but he is no longer president. Should we omit it from the lead of his bio just because it's out of date? Not at all - the biography covers his whole life and he is well-known as having been president. Likewise, this subject is well-known as "Balyogeshwar", especially in India, so we need to reflect that in the lead. It's not a problem - is it?   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, premies knew exactly how Guru Maharaj Ji was pronounced. It was stupid reporting by your source.Momento (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect Wowest et al might be the main source for that one. The Goom Rodgie stuff is a childish attempt to ridicule the subject, unworthy of mention. And the US President comparison is a poor one. Former presidents are addressed as Mr President for the rest of their lives. Former child prodigies are not addressed by their childhood honorifics. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have two sources that say that is how it was pronounced. The US President/Billy Clinton comparison is very poor. Folks never wrote books about him referring to him just as "Mr President", they way that they refer to the subject as "Balyogeshwar" in some 70 books. While "former child prodigies" (is that what the subject is?) may change their names later, a biography should include all alternate names in the lead, per Wikipedia guidelines, just like we do for Cassius Clay. Listen folks, we've already hd the RfC on this and gotten outside input that agress with the guideline. Let's move on already.   Will Beback  talk  17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Will, you have two pathetic sources who claim that is what they heard. Neither of whom are linguists. And Balyogeshwar isn't a current alternate name used by Rawat, it was a title used by other to describe him in India in his youth. And Sant Ji is not a current alternative name and doesn't belong in the lead. I'll write the lead according to the facts, policies and guidelines. And include Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji in the childhood section. And post it here.Momento (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "pathetic" sources are better than none, which is what we have to support Pedrero's assertion that Westerners can hardly pronounce "Balyogeshwar". Nobody has said that "Balyogeshwar" is in current use. While he may have gotten the name in his youth, it was used to refer to him long after he became an adult. India is a very large country, and by the DLM's own figures the sbject has had millions of followers there, so I don't understand why the fact that it was used in India should make any difference to our decision about the lead, except to strengthen the argument for inclusion. The RfC and the guidelines agree, so let's just move on.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead = "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (previously as Guru Maharaj Ji) teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge". Childhood = "Both his mother (Mata Ji) and eldest brother (Satpal Rawat) were suggested as potential successors, but before either could be nominated, Prem (called Sant Ji by his father's followers) addressed the crowd of mourners and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master". + " From that time, Rawat (now called Guru Maharaj Ji) spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his father had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace. Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family and Rawat was known in India as Balyogeshwar (roughly Born Lord of Yogis).Momento (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it from the lead, per the discussions that have taken up thousands of words, the guidelines, and the RfC. As for the additions to the "childhood" section, those don't look too bad except for the last part, "Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family and Rawat was known in India as Balyogeshwar (roughly Born Lord of Yogis)." That is misleading summary of the sources. Many people are young but are not called "Born Lord of the Yogis". According to Reaves, he was called that beacuse of this youth and his "precocious sprituality". I suggest making it a separate sentence rather then tacking it on the end of another. While we're at it, shouldn't we include his full title, as found in several sources: "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj"?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFC was dishonestly framed. "It (Balyogeshwar) was NOT primarily used at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". In the west he was known exclusively as "Guru Mahara Ji". But since all that occurred we have an authoritative new source that gives a definitive view of Rawat's names and titles which supersedes previous ambiguous sources.Momento (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He gained fame in the West when he was in his youth, which is when Balyogeshwar was most commonly used according to sources (though it kept being used all the way into the 1990s). I don't see how that detail of the RfC would have changed the responses we got, but you're welcome to go ask the respondents to reconsider if you feel that is an important point.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Balyogeshwar was primarily used by the public (non followers) in India for 7 years before Rawat "achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". After he left India, he achieved great fame as "Guru Maharaj Ji". But we have an authoritative new source that puts it all in perspective.Momento (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that it wasn't used by followers. We do know that it was used throughout the subject's youth, at least in India. The text you propose doesn't summarize the sources correctly, as I said above. A more reasonable draft for the last sentence of your proposal would be something like, "He was known in India as Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj, or just Balyogeshwar (roughly Born Lord of Yogis) on account of his youth and spritucal precociusness." And there's nothing in Geaves that would give us a reason to bypass our guideline and outside input that agree the names should appear in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We do know it was used by the public. And we do know that his followers called him Guru Maharaj Ji. What you don't know is that it was used by followers. And we don't know that he was known in India as "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". We know that it was a a formal title but to suggest he was known as that is like suggesting Queen Elizabeth is known as Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith,[1] Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich,[N 1] Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem".Momento (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TIME magazine, a reliable source, didn't write "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" without some kind of source of their own. Clearly somebody was calling him that in those days, and it's well-reported. If you think that maybe the designation had an American origin rather than an Indian origin (which seems absurd, but anything is possible), then we can make it more ambiguous by not saying where it was used. "He was known as/called Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj, or just Balyogeshwar (roughly Born Lord of Yogis) in India on account of his youth and spiritual precociusness." How's that?   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is, it's a title not a name. So "Rawat was given the title Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj, or just Balyogeshwar (roughly Born Lord of Yogis) in India on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness." How's that.Momento (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some titles are used as names, and the difference blurs to become a sobriquet. "Christ" is a title, but it is also used as a name. Aside from the long name/title, I've never seen Balyogeshwar used as part of another name. That is, he's never called "Balyogeshwar Rawat", or anything like that, just like no one calls him "Maharaji Rawat". In the sources that refer to him as "Balyogeshwar" it is used the sole designation. That's why it's important to put it into the lead.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ wasn't used as a name by Jesus, nor is it used as a name by Christians. Christ is a title, the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed".[27] Balyogeshwar was not used as a name by Rawat, nor was it used as a name by followers. Balyogeshwar means roughly Born Lord of Yogis in Hindi. They are titles and not alternative names. Like Jesus, whose most common title was Jesus (the) Christ, Rawat's most common title was Guru Maharaj Ji until the early 80s and Maharaji thereafter. Balyogeshwar is a minor title like Jesus the Redeemer. Some people may have used it but it is not the title by which he is commonly known.Momento (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficiently common to appear in roughly 70 books, as found by Jayen's search. Its inclusion ih the lead is consistent with the guideline and the Rfc that specifically asked about it. We've drafted material for the body of the article that explains the various names/titles. Unless there's anything else I'll copy in those drafts.

• Both his mother (Mata Ji) and eldest brother (Satpal Rawat) were suggested as potential successors, but before either could be nominated, Prem (called Sant Ji by his father's followers) addressed the crowd of mourners and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".[20][21][22][23] On July 31, after an improvised ceremony, Mata Ji and his elder brothers touched Rawat's feet as a sign of respect.[24] From that time, Rawat (now called Guru Maharaj Ji) spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his father had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace. Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.[13][25][26] Rawat was given the title "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj", or just "Balyogeshwar" (roughly "Born Lord of Yogis") in India on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness."

Does that sound correct? Is "(now called Guru Maharaj Ji)" too amibiguous?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. But "From that time, Rawat, who took the title Guru Maharaj Ji, spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his father had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace". Following the principle of least surprise Balyogeshwar, a part of a title unknown to millions of people doesn't belong in the lead. You see to be the only one who wants Balyogeshwar in the lead so I suggest you allow everyone else to move on.Momento (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC process has been followed scrupulously, and the strong support is for keeping Balyogeshwar in the lead as an alternate name for Rawat. This endless rehashing by two editors with strong biases on the subject is not worth the time Will has been giving it. Balyogeshwar is a notable name of Rawat's. Consensus is not violated by the obsession of one or two editors. Move on.Msalt (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the text drafted by Momento and me, with his further change. Can we mark this as resolved now?   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Momento has once again deleted Balyogeshwar from the article, with the edit summary: Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk.[28] "Per talk" implies some kind of agreement. There's no agreement here to delete it from the lead. We had an RfC and the outside viewpoints endorsed keeping it. We referenced the guidelines that endorsed including it. This is really outrageous and contrary to Wikipedia editing practices. I strongly protest.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was dishonestly framed. "It (Balyogeshwar) was NOT primarily used at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". When he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru", he was known exclusively as "Guru Mahara Ji". But since all that occurred we have an authoritative new source that gives a definitive view of Rawat's names and titles which supersedes previous ambiguous sources.[29].Momento (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dishonestly framed"? That's an offensive suggestion. The designation was used by Mangalwadi in 1973, in his NY Times article, and in 1977, in his book. Aside from the dozens of other authors using the term, those years do indeed cover the period when the subject achieved his fame in the West as a guru. The Geaves book never gives a beginning or ending date for the use of the designation, so be careful about asserting that it is definitive in this regard.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to the name Balyogeswar and Sant Ji being removed from he lead without consensus. This issue is not resolved. "Maharaji" isn't a name either, shall we discuss removing that too? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not bothered about Balyogeshwar being gone from the lede; if anything, I marginally prefer it without. As I said before, we can prevent surprise by adding a sentence on the Balyogeshwar page saying Prem Rawat was called Balyogeshwar in his youth. And let's remember that the typical number of worldwide page views for Balyogeshwar is zero a day [30][31][32]. Jayen466 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, an "also known as" designation doesn't have to mean the title or name was or is well-known. "A/K/A" encompasses both past and current names and titles. And btw, why did you ask for comments if you're going to ignore them?  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sylvicyn is correct that there has been no consensus to delete the name, and that Momento acted incorrectly to delete it. We don't give much weight to Google hits, and Wikipedia hits seems like an even worse measure. A better measure is the one that Jayen found - that the term is used in roughly 70 books.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be so important?

The main argument that has been put forward in favour of having Baloygeshwar in the lede is that it was an important title and that people who come to the Rawat article via the redirect from Balyogeshwar should not be surprised by the absence of that name in the lead of the article they've been redirected to.

However, the typical number of worldwide daily page views for Balyogeshwar in the last three months has been zero: [33][34][35] This does not bear out the contention that the appellation "Balyogeshwar" has any great significance to our readers. I've previously suggested that we can turn Balyogeshwar into a disambiguation (Rawat is not the only person ever to have been called Balyogeshwar), and explain there that the most prominent bearer of that title was Prem Rawat in his youth.

The first sentence of the lede of this article is better and more readable for the lack of clutter. We do have a clear reference to Balyogeshwar in the Childhood section. That's due weight for that name in my view. Jayen466 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, that is not the main argument I've been putting forward. I have never said that it was an important title, or that people coming here from the redirect would be surprised. That's a strawman. My argument has been that it is the designation/sobriquet/name/title by which the subject is referred by numerous authors (as you yourself discovered) reflecting an apparent preference for the term in the Indian subcontinent, where the subject has purportedly had something like six million followers.   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By a minority of authors on the sub continent 30 years ago. As Jayen says, the lead reads far better without it.Momento (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This was another editor's argument, whom I perceived to be the main person arguing for the inclusion of the name in the lede. There is a fair number of google books hits, mostly of Indian origin and from the seventies and early eighties, which refer to Rawat as Balyogeshwar. But evidence shows that people using Wikipedia don't use this as a search term with anything near the frequency with which they search for "Guru Maharaj Ji", "Maharaji" (actually a disambiguation page leading to two separate people) or "Prem Rawat". Jeaves starts his Rawat chapter in the Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America with a mention of the same three appellations that we have in our lede now (Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji), and explains about Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji on the second page of the chapter, in the childhood section of the biography – which is precisely the same approach that we are using. Jayen466 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we have an RfC about this? Oh, wait, we already have. Come on folks, the guidelines says add alternate names to the intro. The RfC respondents agree. The use of the designation is well-sourced. There is no reason to omit it. The continued deletion of it by Momento despite without any consensus is disruptive. Let's go through mediation and see if we can find a resolution. Otherwise we may have to find some less appealing venue to settle this.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "alternate name". There is zero evidence that any one addressed Rawat as Balyogeshwar. We know he was called Sant Ji by his father's followers, and we know he was called Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji by his followers. Balyogeshwar is a title and just a minor part of one that is often misquoted.Momento (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that he is referred to as "Balyogeshwar", and no evidence that only a minority of Indian writers who write about him use that designation. We've both agree to mediation, so let's just deal with it there.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Referred to" but not used as a name, alternate or otherwise.Momento (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE, again

WP:AE#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Momento to participate in mediaiotn over this, and he's agreed. Therefore the AE is not needed.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What kind of mediation are you starting? Formal, informal? Jayen466 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal. We alrady discussed this matter in informal mediation and in an RfC. It's the only content dispute resolution step that we haven't tried.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• Re-grouped (keeping Balyogeshwar topics in Balyogeshwar RfC, etc...)
• As for the content of the Balyogeshwar page (...redirect or otherwise...), please have the discussions at Talk:Balyogeshwar. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it'd be better to keep the Balyogeshwar discussion at this page, at least while the current discussion is going on.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar - still in use?

Using Google's search and translation functions, it appears that "Balyogeshwar" (बालयोगेश्वर) is still used to refer to the subject in India:

• Prem Rawat Maharaji उर्ङ्घङ्ख Balyogeshwar the human ङ्गङ्खहा ङ्गिङ्ख God ङ्गेङ्ख devoted his life ङ्गङ्खो only उसङ्गङ्खा ङ्गङ्खल्याछ्वा are सङ्गङ्खता is ङ्गङ्खरे. सांसारिङ्गङ्ख चङ्गङ्खाचौंध from human हटङ्गङ्खर Prmakkma ङ्गेङ्ख Crcwaon are dedicated. April 12, 2007
• Raj Vidya Center on Sunday under the auspices of Kisorganj Hrmu Patel Park located in the field of video Balyogeshwar Sreesanth G Maharaj was held discourse. May 19,

Given the vagaries of machine translation, it's possible that these refer to someone else.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt this article is refering to our Mr. Rawat. Raj Vidya is the name of his organisation in India and he is refered to as 'Balyogeshwar Sreesanth G Maharaj' (Balyogeshwar Shri Sant Ji Maharaj). The article refers to him by name, and according to his official schedule he was in India in April 2007. So, I think this is strong evidence that he is still refered to as Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji in India, and Momento should drop his admirably persistent attempt to get the names removed from the article, or relegated to his childhood. --John Brauns (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also a ref on rajvidyakender.org [36] but I think we are safer going with the published literature stating that he is simply known as Maharaji and Prem Rawat today. Jayen466 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Our sources say a variety of things. I don't recall which of them specifically says that he stopped being called "Balyogeshwar" in India - most seem to deal with when he began to be referred to that way. While we might agree on "formerly", which is broad and vague, "in his youth" is more specific and less defensible. I don't think we can say that based on available sources unless we extend his youth into his 40s.   Will Beback  talk  12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that he was called that in his childhood. (That does not mean that come his eighteenth birthday everyone stopped using it. I am sure Bill Clinton's mum might still have called him Billy way past his 18th brithday.) But "formerly" or "previously" is fine. Jayen466 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Many people keep their childhood nicknames into adulthood. Yes, it's a little odd addressing a 60-year old as "Boy", but no one ever said names had to be logical. King William III is still known as "King Billy" in some places (a fact which we report in the lead).   Will Beback  talk  13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps many people do, but Prem Rawat didn't. He specifically changed his name to his given name and left the childhood names behind. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I am happy with "formerly." Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So far as I've seen in sources, he has never changed his name. In 1974 it was reported as being "Prem Pal Singh Rawat", and that[s still his name. Over time he's used or been referred to with a variety of additional designations. So has The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. That's what keeps life interesting. Does anyone object to adding "formerly known as Balyogeshwar" to the lead?   Will Beback  talk  14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The lead should only include alternate "names" chosen and used by the subject, not "titles" given by others.Momento (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A) I don't see any logic to that. The lead should reflect significant usage, regardless of how it comes about. There is really no question anymore that this designation has been widely used in India and is still used at least occasionally. B) His birth name was given to him by others (his parents). Many people acquire names and titles not of their own choosing. C) We don't know how he got the designation "Balyogeshwar" - did his mother or DLM official think it up? Was it a spontaneous creation by his followers or the publc? Maybe he thought it up himself. It's not clear. D) The distinction between titles and names is murky. "Born/Child Lord of the Yogis/Union" is not a functional or official title, and it doesn't reflect his role. It's more like a sobriquet, and in that respect similar to "Maharaji", a title/name meaning "great king", which isn't his role either.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Maharaji, Balyogeshwar, Sant Ji, Paramahansa etc. are "role" titles to the extent that it is customary for religious teachers in India to have such honorifics added to their names, often a whole string of them. It's an expression of that particular kind of respect that they are accorded. You'll find that with any guru or respected monk in India. Jayen466 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We certainly see them appearing in reference to other holy men. However the subject has often been referred to simply as "Balyogeshwar", so that one seems to have stuck.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was just "Balyogeshwar" in the Lok Sabha debates about the alleged smuggling, and according to Cagan also in the kissing photo scandal Satpal arranged. By the way, that latter controversy is one thing we don't mention in the article, and it was big news in India. But it's only in Cagan to my knowledge. Jayen466 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be only Cagan who describes the kissing scandal as having been "arranged" by Satpal, but I recall seeing it mentioned elsewhere. I'll see if I can find reliable sources about it and we can start a separate thread to discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Based on this thread, and on the fact that only Momento has replied, I'm going to add something to the effect of "formerly known as Balyogeshwar" back to the lead, where it's been for the last year. Momento's last objection appears to be solely about whether it is a title or a name, but I don't see hw that makes any difference. It is how he's referred to in India by numerous sources, including recent ones. The mediation is still pending and we can deal with any further disagreements there.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the mediation.Momento (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It'd make more sense to put it back to the way it was before all of this recent edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the status quo? Why didn't you think of that when Francis first inserted it?Momento (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is 2009, not February 2008. In February 2008 we achieved a consensus to include it. Any other reason?   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No we didn't, so let's keep the same rules.Momento (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we did, since Jayen said we did and since it was in the article for a year. Which rules are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento's quibbling is not worth discussion. I strongly supporting inserting the consensus wording "formerly known as Balyogeshwar", per discussion and RfC. (And no, Momento, one or two editors' disagreement does not disprove consensus.) Msalt (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, (thirded?), insert the consensus wording back into the article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 08:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the above, and Momento's failure to reply about what rules he's referring to, I'm going to restore the material as described.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the mediation.Momento (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And editors please refrain from referring to your preferred wording as the consensus version. It is insulting and irritating. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the version that had a consensus for a year. It was changed without agreement. The current version does not have a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  04:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. The childhood name Balyogeshwar was inserted in the lead by Francis on 17th Feb 08, and immediately removed as unsuitable. Then it was replaced by "less frequently as Balyogeshwar", and this was disputed as well. It was been replaced as "in India as Balyogeshwar," and that was not agreed to either. There has never been a consensus as to how, if at all, this name should appear in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Until the middle of 1973, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature listed Guru Maharaj Ji as "see Balyogeshwar, Boy Guru," which is where everything was listed. The main reason for that is that until then, the most famous Guru Maharaj Ji in America was Dr. Richard Alpert's guru, Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba Sant Ji Maharaj. This being an encyclopedia, frequently used by school children when writing papers, it could be very important to someone to be able to look up information about the guru earlier than, say, "Soul Rush," so it should obviously stay in the lede.

Despite someone's snide comment about me, above, the spelling "Goom Rodgie" came from a news magazine article entitled "Goom Rodgie's Razzle Dazzle Soul Rush" from mid 1973. It was, in fact, how it was pronounced by all of the "hip" premies. I could never quite figure out what they were saying until I saw it in print. I think it was Newsweek. Wowest (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the middle of 1973 is a long while ago. Anyone searching for "Balyogeshwar" will be redirected to this article, which is how it should be, and the name is given as a historic title in the body of the text, again how it should be. My only objection is that it should not appear in the lead as a current name, which would give the wrong impression. Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We've established that it has been used often since 1973 and at least as recently as 2007. It appears to be the more popular name in India, perhaps because "Rawat" and "Maharaji" are common designations. But if we can all agree on putting "formerly known as" in the lead then we can settle this silly dispute.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While it makes the lead sentence somewhat more cumbersome, I can live with that. Jayen466 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have "(previously Guru Maharaj Ji)", so it's just a matter of adding another term to the list.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It was never a title as widely used as Guru Maharaji Ji, and probably should not be included with it, but with the assurance from other editors that they will not try to flood this lead with similar ancient Indian titles on the pretext that Balyogeshwar is there, and some magazine or other refrred to them in 1979, I concur. "...formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar." Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "ancient" if it's been used as recently as 2007. But I'm not aware of any other designations as widely used so I wouldn't be proposing any other ones for the intro. Regarding Momento's objection, the mediation has been put on hold pending the completion of the ArbCom case. As we all know, such cases can take months. If he still objects when it's over I'd still be willing to enage in mediation over it. In the meantime, I'll add the text Rumiton has approved, "formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar".   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. There is no consensus for making a change whilst mediation has been agreed to.Momento (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a consensus. Rumiton, Jayen, Msalt, Maelefique, Wowest, John Brauns, Abecedare, Ekabhishek, and myself have all agreed to this.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they voiced their agreement since mediation was agreed to. And I don't think they agreed to your badly phrased sentence. I don't believe Balyogeshwar should be in the lead but if that's what mediation requires then at the very least it should be "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge".Momento (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's Rumiton's "badly phrased sentence". I'd suggested going with "previously", but I'm flexible. I suggest we leave this for now and come back to it when mediation starts. We've already written over 14,000 words about this one designation.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, just to be absolutely clear -- I strongly agree to the consensus phrase "formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar" in the lede and continue to do so after the mediation. You are the only person who does not agree. If you add the words "in India" or any other softening or distracting phrases, you will be editing tendentiously and against a unanimous consensus and RfC. This discussion is over. There is consensus, whether you choose to join it or not. Please move on. Msalt (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You agree to "formerly Balyogeshwar"? WillBeBack claims it's been "used as recently as 2007". So which is more accurate? Is it "formerly" used universally or currently used in "India"? There's only one answer to that question. Either way consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth. "Balyogeshwar" was not chosen by Rawat nor did he refer to himself as "Balyogeshwar" and therefore it does not have the same relevance as "Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji)" that was chosen, used and continues to be used by Rawat for more than 40 years in every corner of the world. Do you strongly disagree with that?Momento (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. In Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, up to the middle of 1973, the Guru Maharaj Ji articles were referred to as "See Balyogeshwar, Boy Guru." Therefore, to anyone researching this individual, the term Balyogeshwar could be vital. For those who aren't familiar with Reader's Guide, it is a very thick publication -- about eight inches per year with pages approximately 9 x 12 inches. Each annual volume only indexes publications for that year, so it is critical to any researcher to be able to find the main categories from previous years. Wowest (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Balyogeshwar" doesn't need to be in the lead to link.Momento (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe we all know by now that that is what you think is best. We don't always get our way. As I said above, I'd be happy to discuss this with you further in mediation, but for the time being there is a clear consensus for adding back the material. There are no new arguments being made. Endlessly rehashing the same old arguments is unproductive.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What Will BeBack said. This discussion is over. Consensus may not eliminate the need for truth, but it does eliminate the need to keep arguing with Momento. I recommend not even engaging Momento on this question. Msalt (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why mediation was suggested and I agreed to it.Momento (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just got a book I'd ordered a few weeks ago. It mentions the subject three times, once in the index.

• To emphasize how widely South-Asian-styled religious figures are (and have become) a worldwide phenomenon, consider the following list of names: ... Guru Maharaj Ji (Balyogeshwar)... p. 227
• Surely, with respect to the names in the list, religious "archetypes" may be discerned: ... the boy-guru (Balyogeshwar, alias Guru Maharaj Ji)... p. 229
• Balyogeshwar (Guru Maharaj Ji), 227 p. 314 (index entry)
• Aravamudan, Srinivas (2006). Guru English. Princeton Universtiy Press. p. 330. ISBN 0691118272, 9780691118277. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

So there's another use in the US within the last decade.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian newspaper coverage

[[37]] Comments? Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Are you going to add into this article every little irrevelant tidbit that's published in the world? Let us know when Rawat gives a bona fide interview with any major journalists, like someone that he hasn't hand-picked first, such as Burt Wolfe's interview. Now that'll be news.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In bad machine translation it appears that he helped open a local Almond Tree Festival. Is there some significance to this?   Will Beback  talk  16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't do bad machine translation. Maybe someone has enough Italiano to tell us what it is about. I think an absolute flood of "little irrelevant tidbits", which is what we are seeing, maybe attains some significance, and this should be acknowledged in the article. Any interviewer who responds positively to him could be accused of being hand-picked. Rumiton (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's from Rawat's own faq. Q: "Does Prem Rawat speak to the media? A: Maharaji speaks to the media from time to time. He is happy to grant interviews to journalists who have a sincere interest in his message. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe most public figures would not waste their time arguing with hostile reporters. They will only talk to journalists who will hear them out, but it is part of a biased frame of mind to describe that as "hand-picking." Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is mostly about local festivities. The headline is happy to mention Prem Rawat, perhaps this time it was the authorities who invited him who were honored rather than Prem Rawat himself, who was present in the opening of the local yearly festivities. There is only one sentence about Prem the "pacifist", (bad word choice of the writer) who was present in the opening of the festivities, the mayor of the town Marco Zambuto introduced Prem Rawat, and the article quotes Prem saying:

"We must keep on believing that peace in the world is a possible fact. Perhaps we are sending a message to the wind, but it is important to continue believing."

That is all, the rest is about the local festivities. It could be included, but it is one more of at least hundreds of speeches, in 40 years they are probably more than one thousand. I think someone might find evidence that Prem spoke at the US House of Representatives in the Bicentennial speeches. I have seen a few seconds of the start of his speech in a video, so the data must be somewhere. He is one of the youngest persons that have spoken there, and might be the youngest in 200 years. The bio still has a lot of trivia interesting only to a few "specialists on Prem", but uninteresting for most people, while important facts and specially his teachings, the most important thing, are absent or almost. The article is still far from a normal bio of other similarly respected people. I have read that at a time there were more negative comments in Prem's biography than in Hitler's. Even if that is exagerated and it was only half or one third it would still be absurd. What has been happening here?--Pedrero (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We devote another entire article to his teachings, which is the reason that they are only barely mentioned in this article. Where did you read the assertion about this article versus Hitler's?   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will, but don't you think that if the most imporant thing is his teachings and they are in another place a link to that place is reasonable? And even in the bio, there should be an explanation at least as long as the trivia plus comments by scholars, some of this are as valid as an aircraft engineer's opinion on Greek archeology. I will try to find the comparison with Hitler's bio again.--Pedrero (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the article about the things he has done. The teachings article is about the things he has said. It's a simple division. If you think his teachings are more important than his actions then you can focus on that article instead. But adding more trivia to this article won't help.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have always felt that even with there being a separate article for Rawat's teachings, our summary of them here is too short. We don't usually separate notable figures from their teachings, literary works, musical output, philosophies etc. in this way. I think we should expand the section. Geaves' chapter could be of use here, both in this and the Teachings article. Jayen466 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot to say about Marxism, in an article all its own. We cover Wagner's Operas with an article on each one. No two circumstances are the same. Geaves is a problematic source, being so closely connected to the subject. I have no objection to expanding the "teachings" article. But this biography is quite long so let's keep the summaries of other articles as short as possible. There's no need to be redundant.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Will, that is not true. In Marx's bio, the philosophy takes up more space than the events of his life, even though we have a separate article on Marxism. The same for Gandhi and whoever else you care to mention. And if Geaves is good enough for Gallagher, who are we to say he is not good enough for us? Jayen466 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No two articles are the same. The bio of Karl Marx includes a large section titled "Criticisms". Should we follow that example here too? Also, Marx is considered one of the most densely-intellectual philosophers of the modern era, who wrote many important books and whose philosophy became the focus of entire universities and even nations. On the other hand, this subject's philosphy has been repeatedly described as lacking in intellectual content, and advocates have said it has to be experienced and can't be described. How many words should we devote to something that can't be described in words? As for Geaves, he is a reliable source, just not a neutral one. So long as we're aware of his bias, attribute his opinions, and note discrepancies with other sources then I don't see a problem. But I don't think we should use it wholesale the way we might use a more neutral source like Downton or Melton.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, the things he has done, and the most important thing he has done is teach, without which there would be no bio at all, so that is the only thing that is not trivia, and not the other way around. It is incredible that you call "trivia" the main reason why this bio exists. Are the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, philosophers etc. also "trivia" for you or only Prem's? It is not only me who consider his teachings the most important fact in his life, it should be obvious to everybody, whether one likes them or not. Except for tabloids and a few more, of course.--Pedrero (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat is not notable in the present day. Except for his various organizations taking advantage of the internet search engines, he isn't a well-know individual, say, like Deepak Chopra or Rick Warren, who appear on Larry King Live all of the time, have best-selling books they have written themselves, have advanced academic degrees and credentials, and also have widespread name-recognition. Prem Rawat, a/k/a Maharaji shuns the mainstream press (and has for decades) so he has no widespread or household name-recognition anywhere in the western world. The only reason he has an article on Wikipedia is because of his fame as a child and boy guru in the 70s, when he was covered by scholars and the mainstream press quite a lot, especially in the U.S. and the UK. Sorry, but that's a fact. Nobody knows who he is, nor are they interested in him. It doesn't matter how many Google hits his name gets -- that doesn't translate into name-recognition by real people. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "notable", which is the Wikipedia criterion for inclusion, with "wildly famous" which will get you into wildly famous magazines. Rumiton (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No confusion. This is a section in the BLP policy entitled: "People who are relatively unknown" at W:NPF. Certainly one of the notable things Rawat said as a newcomer to the west was that he reveals the same "Knowledge" that Jesus Christ, Buddha, et al revealed. Statements like that, his young age, and proclamations of his divinity are what got him press attention at the time. He doesn't get any press attention in the present day because he purposely avoids it, hence he doesn't have any fame and name recognition. I wasn't arguing for deletion of the article, but it could be argued that, based on the fact that he is a "relatively unknown" public person, that he does not warrant the plethora of related articles that are currently on Wikipedia. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening an Almond Tree festival is trivia. His teachings are not triviai, which is why we devote a whole article to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat is in no way comparable in notability to Buddha or Jesus, whose teachings have thrived for thousands of years among literally billions of followers. This is not a judgment on the relative value of his teachings, simply a fact. He is more comparable to other contemporary teachers such as Osho or Adi Da, neither of whom even have separate teachings articles. If anything, Rawat is over-articled on Wikipedia.Msalt (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say, though it isn't particulary relevant, that Prem Rawat is known by way more people today than either Jesus or Buddha were when they were living persons. Rumiton (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You had me at "it isn't particularly relevant". Msalt (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia didn't have articles on them when they were living. Only after their followings had grown enough to make them notable did WP create articles about them. ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's pretty cool. Nice phrasing, too. Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the bio should only mention what Prem has done and you pretend to be guided by reason you should be asking that the tart incident be removed, since that is not what Prem has done, but a journalist did ,and Prem suffereded. The incident should be in the bio of the journalist.--Pedrero (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not how biographies are written. Take the bio of John F. Kennedy. Should it not metion that someone fired a bullet at him, since that isn't something that he did?   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Things that he did and things that happened to him. Both. That's what biographies have in them.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A bullet and a tart are very different things. If I can choose, I prefer a tart. The intention of the bullet is clear, that of the tart too, and that of including it in the bio too. It seems the concept of "improving Prem's biography" is exactly the opposite for pro-Prem and anti-Prem people.--Pedrero (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the pie too, though a shaving cream pie isn't as tasty as a banana cream pie. However the point is that biographies routinely include things that happen to their subjects, even if the subjects did nothing to cause the event.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If Prem Rawat "doesn't have ANY fame and name recognition" why is he increasingly invited to speak at many recognized universities and institutions with attendance of many recognized intellectuals? —Preceding comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points: First, a huge number of non-notable people speak at universities, starting with professors and instructors. Being asked to speak neither connotes nor confers notability. Second, the subject is known for having a special effort to elicit such invitations, so routine honors and speaking engagements in rented halls have to be taken with a grain of salt.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, did Jim Jones or David Koresh ever speak at any of the respected places Prem has? Why?--Pedrero (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an odd question. Are those the two people most similar to this suject? I wouldn't have picked them. However, since you ask, it appears that Jim Jones did achieve a level of prominence in California. See Peoples Temple in San Francisco#Political beginnings. But if that was all Jones was known for we probably wouldn't have a large article on him. His notability grew exponentially with the murder/suicide in 1978, which also cast a spotlight on other groups, including the Divine Light Mission of Guru Maharaj Ji. In any case, notability can appear for many reasons. Folks can toil away in obscurity for a lifetime, and then become famous for asking a single question at a candidates forum. See Joe the Plumber. Fame is fickle.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't have picked Jim Jones, Will? You have picked him before in a comparison with Prem, did you forget? Seems I am not the only one with memory problems. So you think speaking at prestigious institutions is not a sign of acceptability and they let anyone speak there? I do not think these institutions would agree with you, Will, nor many other people. I have just read the changes in the introduction of Prem's bio, and it looks much better now, just essential facts, no unnecessary things or curiosities which are only interesting to "specialists on Prem". Wikipedia should be written for normal people.--Pedrero (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about honors received then Rev. Sun Myung Moon might make a more intersting comparison. A few years back there was an event in Washington D.C. in which members of Congress crowned him "King of Peace". See Sun Myung Moon coronation. By comparison, Rawat's honor of a certificate from the head of a quasi-university in Brazil naming him an "Ambassador of Peace" seems like small potatoes.   Will Beback  talk  18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are making. Seems to me these smallish events are a part of his notability, but only a small part, unworthy of undue weight. The huge public events over the years are a much bigger part. Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that opening Almond Tree Festivals or getting the keys to a city are the reasons why this person is notable, but such events are occasionally noted in the media. To use another comparison, Clayton Moore is notable for having starred as the Lone Ranger on TV, but he is not really notable for having made personal appearances after the show ended, even though he made hundreds of them. As I said elsewhere on this page, these kinds of minor events are probably best combined into a long sentence or a short paragraph, if we have reliable sources for them.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A very poor comparison, if I might say so. Prem Rawat is more active over the last 20 years than ever before. We may not have sources to comment on this, mainly due to his self-imposed media isolation, but we all know it, and should not ignore the fact. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we should ignore the fact, if we don't have sources. Otherwise, it's original research. That's wikipedia policy. Msalt (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Raja Ji's wife

An editor deleted a name from this sentence:

• He ran a household for his wife, his brother and sister-in-law, Raja Ji and Claudia, and financed travel for the close officials and mahatmas who accompanied him on his frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals.

With the edit summary:

• took out name of Raja Ji's wife to improve sentence flow. [38]

Is the aim to improve the sentence or is it to remove the name? If we want to improve the sentence Im sure there are better ways.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Rawat got divorced and left the cult, deleting her name seems to be just another point of the followers agendaSurdas (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "cult", it's a biography of Prem Rawat. Divorce happens. The subject's brother and sister-in-law get several pages in Collier, as I recall, and the other cite is to Downton. The couple's daughter has become notable as an actress, though no reliable source seems to carry that information. Anyway, if we're just looking to improve the grammar and "flow" then we can do it without deleting the name.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire intention was to improve the flow. I couldn't care less about naming his sister-in-law, it just seems like an unnecessary stretch for a biography. Is Bill Clinton's sister-in-law named? Getting PR's wife, his brother, his wife, and her name into one sentence was a very clumsy business and seemed unworth the effort, when all we are saying is he took care of the family's financial needs. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, then we can focus on improving the flow rather than on removing information. Here's the text we're summarizing:

• Source: Price, The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization. in Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 "Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. Note 27: Contributions from premies throughout the world allow Maharaj Ji to follow the life style of an American millionaire. He has a house (in his wife's name), an Aston Martin, a boat, a helicopter, the use of fine houses (divine residences) in most European countries as well as South America, Australia and New Zealand, and an income which allows him to run a household and support his wife and children, his brother, Raja Ji, and his wife, Claudia. In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals."

I see that the original text was probably too close to quoting the source rather than paraphrasing it. Claudia is also mentioned by Downton in regard to the marriages to non-Indians by Prem Rawat and his brother.

• The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission. And, unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture. The conflict with his mother became more intense when his brother, Raja Ji, married Claudia Littman, a German citizen living in the United States. No longer wishing to be bound by the Indian tradition of marrying within one's own caste, Guru Maharaj Ji approved his brother's marriage, to the very great displeasure of his mother, who was still strongly tied to Indian customs. When Guru Maharaj Ji himself decided to marry outside of his caste, his mother became upset because she had not been asked to approve the marriage and, when it occurred, she was not invited to attend because communication between them had already broken down.

It might make sense to add a mention of Claudia prior to Prem Rawat's marriage, as part of the context, and then we won't have to repeat her name in this part.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, does including this lady's name add anything of value to the article? I don't care much either way, but the word "bloated" still rings in my ears from our last Good Article application. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You previously said your edit wasn't about removing the name, so unless you've changed your mind that isn't the issue here. Sources say the marriage and rift were among the three most important events in the subject's life. The older brother's prior marriage to a German woman is seen by both Downton and Collier as important context for the subject's marriage to a non-Indian soon after. I'll check other sources to see if there's anything more. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the material. It's sourced and neutral, and "flow" isn't a good enough reason to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence was awkward, and reworded it this way: "He ran a household for his wife, his brother (Raja Ji) and his sister-in-law (Claudia),..." Msalt (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

His marriage and his brother's were crucial events, but like I said, I don't care much about his sister-in-law's actual name. I don't believe she is well-known (I may be wrong) and it just seems like over-information. If other editors think it important, then fine. I would go with Msalt's rewording, except that I would use commas instead of brackets. And "flow" isn't a good enough reason? Flow keeps people reading. Wash your mouth out with Wikisoap. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Flow is very important, I agree; I think you'll find that most of my edits of articles are to improve readibility, just things I run across helping my daughters with their homework. In an article as contentious as this one, though, it's important to avoid even the appearance of changing content and misrepresenting it as improving the flow. I suggest editors take pains to NOT change, add or remove any content when editing for readability. It's always cleaner to make two separate edits, one for the addition or removal of information, and a second one for flow.Msalt (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving flow is a good reason to change word order or punctuation. It is a bad reason to delete sourced information.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat speaking at US Senate in 1976

I have found something more interesting, the video of the speech of Prem Rawat in the US Senate in 1976. Is that relevant enough to be mentioned or is the US Senate not a relevant or reliable source?

• http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2090545/united_states_senate_invited_prem_rawat_back_in_1976/
• http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2090545/united_states_senate_invited_prem_rawat_back_in_1976/
• http://vodpod.com/watch/1195000-united-states-senate-invited-prem-rawat-back-in-1976

I am sure there will be arguments opposing mentioning this speech for varied reasons. --Pedrero (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The video on "Vodpod" doesn't say that he's addressing the U.S. Sentate. It says he is addressing the "U.S. Citizen's Congress", which I've never heard of. It also says that it occured on February 22, 1976, an odd date for a celebraiton of the U.S. Bicentennial. Like other video-taped speeches this needs an independent, secondary source to put it into context and show notability.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just checked the archives of the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times and neither one mentions a "U.S. Citizen's Congress", much less the subject's appearance there.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake, sorry, this seems to be in some place, hotel or something, called Mayflower, speaking to a group including members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, because he mentions them in the salutation in the beginning. I thought I had read somewhere he gave a speech at the occasion of the bicentennial at the House of Representatives, but it was this one. Prem mentions the bicentennial. I have problems with my memory, I went to the doctor and he gave me some pills, but I cannot take them because I can't remember where I put them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a complete account of this speech and its circumstances. Rabbi Korff and the Citizens' Congress Speech. I'll check again for some mention of it in the papers.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting history. Apparently Rabbi Baruch Korff was a prominent conservative Republican in the mid-1970s. He led an interesting life even before then as an advocate for Holocaust survivors. In 1974 he was Richard Nixon's chief defender outside the administration, even holding a big event to support Nixon just weeks before the resignation. Korff established two groups that year, the National Citizens' Committee for Fairness to the Presidency and the U.S. Citizens Congress. The USCC held at least two big events in 1976 - the one in Washington and one at the Republican Convention in Kansas City, both attended by the same two Cabinet members, Butz and Simon. Korff was apparently trying to advance Simons' prospects as a VP candidate. Not long after this Korff retired from politics. He wrote memoirs, edited his papers, and appeared on a regular ecumenical religious talk show in the decade before his death. While the USCC did get a little attention, I still haven't found any mention of Rawat addressing them. Even if we do find some coverage of the speech, the USCC appears to have been a minor, short-lived political effort, and the dinner was no more notable than a hundred similar dinners held every year in Washington. I think we can seek to summarize this along with the Almond Fetival, the keys to the cities, and similar minor honors. Something like, "Rawat has received a string of honors and appeared at numerous events, such as..."   Will Beback  talk  13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with such a summary, unless a more detailed and interesting account surfaces. Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this speech merits even inclusion in such a list. The fact that none of us could figure out exactly when or where it was given is a pretty good example of its complete lack of notability.Msalt (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd still require a reliable source, or course.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

There is a case on the Prem Rawat articles ongoing before the arbitration committee.

• Evidence page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Evidence
• Workshop page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Workshop

Editors are welcome to contribute material to these pages. Jayen466 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article greatly improved since Nov 2008

This article has greatly improved since I first began to monitor it and the discussion pages in November last year. The neutrality warning was removed in December as I recall. Since that time it has been rewritten to reduce its cumbersome length and render it far more readable. Progress has been possible despite apparent strongly held opposing opinions displayed by all editors with the exception of Jayen. Congratulations to regular editors. Considering the progress that has been made wouldn't it be wise to drop the current arbcom case in favor of voluntary restraint and consideration? --Zanthorp (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please inform me what my "strong opposing opinion" is, Zanthorp -- I seem to have forgotten. Thanks, Msalt (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've got a bit of spare time today, so here you go. These came from the most recently archived discussion page. Approximately two thirds of your posts on that page expressed opposition to Jayen, Momento and Rumiton.

I strongly disagree. If I was editing a page on the history of the Catholic Church, I would certainly scrutinize the reliability of a Catholic scholar more closely (and I was raised Catholic, and have witnessed first hand that there is a tradition of internal criticism of the Church; but still I would scour that scholar's work for bias.) Our job is to judge the reliability of each of the article's (potential) sources, not the eminence of the source's publishers. Msalt (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento's quibbling is not worth discussion. I strongly supporting inserting the consensus wording "formerly known as Balyogeshwar", per discussion and RfC. (And no, Momento, one or two editors' disagreement does not disprove consensus.) Msalt (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, just to be absolutely clear -- I strongly agree to the consensus phrase "formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar" in the lede and continue to do so after the mediation. You are the only person who does not agree. If you add the words "in India" or any other softening or distracting phrases, you will be editing tendentiously and against a unanimous consensus and RfC. This discussion is over. There is consensus, whether you choose to join it or not. Please move on. Msalt (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is over. Consensus may not eliminate the need for truth, but it does eliminate the need to keep arguing with Momento. I recommend not even engaging Momento on this question. Msalt (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat is in no way comparable in notability to Buddha or Jesus, whose teachings have thrived for thousands of years among literally billions of followers. This is not a judgment on the relative value of his teachings, simply a fact. He is more comparable to other contemporary teachers such as Osho or Adi Da, neither of whom even have separate teachings articles. If anything, Rawat is over-articled on Wikipedia.Msalt (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the last 2 items qualify as strong opposing opinion. What do you think? --Zanthorp (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I will assume in good faith that you are not that familiar with these pages, as you appear to be a new editor, but I urge you to be careful to avoid the impression that you are trying to influence the ArbCom with a carefully timed talk page comment from a seemingly neutral party just as they are making their decision. Perhaps by accident, your description of the page here happens to perfectly serve the goals of the allied pro-Rawat editors you list (Jayen, Rumiton and Momento) in this ArbCom case. I notice that many of the edits you have made involved the Pieing page, including specifically Prem Rawat's pieing incident.

It's interesting that you exempt Jayen466 but not Will Beback from your description of "strong opposing opinions." Jayen is in agreement with Momento and Rumiton at least two-thirds of the time or more (one of your criteria). Jayen and Will both speak in very moderate tones; so does Rumiton lately, for the most part, but that does not indicate the lack of POV you imply.

In contrast, I speak as directly as possible (life is short) but I am also one of the few people -- perhaps the only person -- on these talk pages who has criticized the behavior of both Francis and Momento, as far as I can tell. Momento is the main subject of an Arbcom case revolving around his alleged disruption, and the comments you quote are mostly responses by me to what I consider to be prime examples of that disruption. (He has been blocked and warned several times for his behavior.)

But I strongly object to your implication that I am editing from POV. Can you understand that some of us really don't even care particularly whether someone calls Prem Rawat "Balyogeshwar", in our personal POV or daily life, but object to editors obstructing progress in an article even after unequivocal rejection of their position by RfC and other dispute resolution? Msalt (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading these pages off and on for the last 5 months has been quite a learning process for me, and by that I'm referring to Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and the way it all operates. I could take your comments, 1st paragraph above, as a veiled threat and an invitation to butt out and mind my own business. I'd prefer to assume good faith. I will assume that your unjustified and inappropriate speculation about my motives reflects the sensitivity associated with ArbCom. Rather than looking at my short edit record I urge you read the discussion on that pieing list discussion page. it is short and should only take a minute or 2 of your time. Especially, I urge you to read the next section, Reasons For Deletion, my reasons actually. Perhaps previous attempts failed because reasons for deletion were poorly articulated and not fully understood.[[39]]

Your slant on POV seems odd to me. Who doesn't have a point of view and what's wrong with expressing it? You are quite forthright in expressing yours. I'm not convinced, far from it, that voicing objection to decisions is "impeding progress." Debate / discussion does lead to genuine progress, i.e. a genuinely NPOV article, even if it does get a bit heated sometimes or it goes in some direction that someone may not like. Stifling discussion by banning editors with different views to yours will not help to produce a fair, NPOV article. A lot of progress has been made in the last few months and in my post above I sincerely congratulated editors, you included, for that achievement. Perhaps in the current climate it is difficult for involved editors to reflect on that progress. As an outside observer I have watched you guys struggle with 30 plus year old sources trying to develop an NPOV article about a subject who has made numerous, far reaching organizational and other changes over that time. Its no wonder the task has been difficult.

One final point, it would be naive of me to imagine that anything I write here could have any bearing on the Arbcom outcome. If you think otherwise I'm sure you seriously underestimate the people making that call. --Zanthorp (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask again: if you think you know what my POV on Prem Rawat is, please speak your mind. I don't believe I have one, in the sense of "not being neutral in point of view" which is how the term is used on Wikipedia. I simply don't know the man or his teachings or any of his followers or ex-followers or opponents. If you have better information, please share it. I believe you are making unfounded and incorrect assumptions and insinuations (e.g. "Stifling discussion by banning editors with different views to yours will not help.") For that matter, why don't you tell us your POV on Rawat? Msalt (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• The quotations pasted above by Zanthorp do not show bias against the subject by Msalt. Most concern the editing process rather than the subject. Msalt's comment that "Prem Rawat is in no way comparable in notability to Buddha or Jesus" is not a biased statement nor does it indicate a particular POV slant. Anyone who thinks that Rawat is comparable in notability to Buddha or Jesus should probably find a different topic to edit.
• Regardless of that, this isn't the place to discuss other editors. Let's confine ourselves to discussing improvements to the article, please.   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of those points. Perhaps with a little further explanation I can address some of Msalt's apparent concerns.

Msalt, I did not state or imply that I know what your "POV on Prem Rawat is" or that you edit from POV. Expressing an opinion about the editing process and editing from a POV are not the same thing. I do not have a well developed POV concerning PR and I don't care whether or not he was once called Balyogeshwa. I have not done the extensive research, nor do I have the in-depth knowledge of this topic that regular editors display. For those reasons I have not edited the article, nor have I contributed to these discussions until now. At one time I was involved in a minor way in political activism. It was through that channel that I found my way to the pieing pages and it was there that I was first introduced to this topic. Above I wrote, "Stifling discussion by banning editors with different views to yours will not help to produce a fair, NPOV article." The statement is a clear, general and unambiguous. There are no "unfounded and incorrect assumptions and insinuations." I do have a couple of ideas that should help to improve the article. I will discuss those here when I have more time. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate that. I guess I still don't understand your statement about stifling discussion -- which discussion? The only person I've recommended banning long term is Momento, whose pro-Rawat POV is clear, but if you don't know mine, than how would you know that his view is different to mine? If you mean discussion about Wikipedia policy, I welcome discussion by Momento or anyone, but in my humble opinion those discussions belong on the policy pages, not in Prem Rawat, and editors here should follow the consensus developed there. Msalt (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the pieing?

I wasn't aware that we had a pieing article, but how is it that the Rawat pieing during the summer of 1973 isn't mentioned there? It was front page news in the Detroit papers at the time, and it was clearly the most significant event in Rawat's life! Wowest (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We have two articles on the topic. Pieing and List of people who have been pied. Prem Rawat is included in the latter.   Will Beback  talk  17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

The same information from the same sources has been included twice in the article. In the section titled 1976 - 1980 we read,

"Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[10] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.[101] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.[10]"

And near the end of the article under Following we read,

"When former officials of Rawat's organisations spoke in the aftermath of the Jonestown incident in the late 1970s, they did not limit themselves to the movement, but included its leader in their criticism,[101] including claims that money had been diverted to Rawat's personal use.[10]"

The last paragraph is a truncated version of information already provided under the 1976 - 1980 heading, and as far as I can see it provides no information about R's following. I therefore propose that we delete it. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be a correct summary of the problem. I agree that the second instance should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be late, but so do I. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston speech

While we're at it, let's summarize this one too:

• Rawat returned to England and the United States in June, and in August spoke to an audience of 9,000 in Boston. A Boston reporter described Rawat as:
  • ...a real human being. He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor. Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is".

First, there's no consensus about Cagan as a reliable source, so we should drop that part. Second, the whole quote is very long considering its relative importance to the article. Here's a simpler version:

• A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the divine claims claims of divinity made by followers.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, except that claims of divinity would be better than divine claims. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - I've changed the draft.   Will Beback  talk  14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks clear and concise.--Zanthorp (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA allegations

Wasn't the guru maharaj ji the one accused by the new left in the 1970s to be part of a CIA-led conspiracy to undermine the youth movement at the time? Pergamino (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Various folks accused the subject and the movement of being fronts for the CIA. Paul Krassner was among those who made the accusation on the American Left. It was also made by members of the Indian government. Even a senior member of the Divine Light Mission said that he suspected the CIA had led the guru astray. However there's never been any evidence of an actual connection. Unless someone is suggesting adding more to the article about the accusations there's no point in discussing the matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which members of the indian government made these charges? Also, in a discussion about perceptions, aren't these perceptions important enough to be outlined? At a minimum, it will show how different strata of society react to the arrival of an unconventional guru. Pergamino (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the alleged CIA connection, the subject was also accused in the early 1970s of having lied about his age, and of being a fake/fraud/charlatan.[40] The last is unprovable and the first two, though plausible, were never proven. While widely reported allegations may be worth reporting in some circumstances, I'm not sure that these qualify. They were not as widely reported as more verifiable issues, like the luxury cars or the pranks (which we don't even mention now). Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The British Daily Mail article you refer to, speaks of the "Indian Special Branch" having made the allegations of a CIA connection. If you take that statement as being plausible, and if a similar statement was made in the US by the leftists, why not report it? I'd think is speaks loudly of the reaction to the guru at the time. Pergamino (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they actually allege a connection. Rather, they speculate on the possibility of a connection. I suppose we could add more to the "reception" section. Now that I look at it I don't see anything about the views of the New Left, which were significant because of their commentaries on the subject and because of the overlap between protesters and followers. Stephen Kent's From Slogan to Mantras is devoted to the transition from protest to devotion. However if we were to add such material the CIA allegation would still be a small part, if it's even worth mentioning at all. Further, there's nothing about the reception of the subject in India.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"The US-based New left made allegations the the guru was part of a CIA-led conspiracy to undermine the youth movement at the time; others making similar allegations were the Indian Special Branch, who said that it feared spies or CIA agents might use the security of the mission as a cover. The Indian Home Office also challenged the guru's age, stating that he was 18 or 19 years of age rather than 15." Pergamino (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this draft is comprehensive. The CIA allegation isn't that important in the scheme of things. Is there some special reason why it's of special interest? If we want to talk about the perceptions of the movement and the subject by the New Left, then there are better ways of doing so and other issues to discuss. Likewise, there are various reports from India, including a variety who questioned the subject's age and others who questioned his sincerity. (If we want to discuss his age, then we should probably also add that the Colorado judge who gave him permission to marry at the purported age of 16 also said that he seemed older.)   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• On which basis do you say that it is not comprehensive? And what do you mean when you say the "scheme of things"? I'd say that it can be certainly included in the "America 1973" subheading, and you could always add more if needed later on. Pergamino (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not comprehensve because it doesn't cover the views of the New Left, or the reported views of people in India. When I say, "the scheme of things", I mean the relative weight we give to various elements of the subject's life. Lastly, the material you added isn't sourced. I suggest we bring it back to the talk page while we discuss it further.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see. The provenance of these transcripts is not authoritative, right? Surely a scan or microfiche of the Winnipeg newspaper could be found online. Pergamino (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the Winnipeg paper has to do with this, or how "provenance" fits in. There are several problems with this text. If we're goingto get into what members of the "New Left" said about the subject, then we should prioritize them, giving the greatest weight to the most prominent views rather than just picking one at random. Likewise with the views of other commentators. Another problem is that we shouldn't add anything to the article without proper citations, which is why your contribution was reverted.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to learn the markup for citations, thanks for the info. Is the new left quote "random"? The provenance cannot be a non-authoritative Web site (ask my TA...), so I am looking for a book or a scan of the original that could be used as a citation, and when I do I'll re-add the sentence. Pergamino (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer back to my earlier question about the CIA allegation - Is there some reason why it's of special interest? Why is it more important to add than other allegations? Without answers to those the choice of the issue does seem random. How can I contact your TA to ask him what he means? Better yet, tell me yourself. As for adding it back, please don't rush into it. This article is under ArbCom probation.   Will Beback  talk  16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why it is not of special interest? I will not rush, as I am still looking for an authoritative source. Pergamino (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles. Members of the New Left made a variety of allegations about the subject and the movement. Rather than reviewing all of those, and summarizing them according to their prominence, you are seeking to deal with just one. Why?   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing quotations

The Media section includes a disparaging reference to the subject's weight and appearance. In my opinion the article is degraded by the inclusion of this material. ""In 1973, the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission concluded that he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling""

The out of context statement "...arrested for jewel smuggling" could be especially problematic. We have no control over the way readers use Wikipedia articles. It is possible that the jewel smuggling statement could be copied and quoted elsewhere as fact. For that reason I think we should make it clear in the media section that Rawat was not arrested.

From the BLVP policy page, "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.[[41]] And, from the intro, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." [[42]]

I suggest that we paraphrase rather than quote the public relations team's 1973 conclusions. By doing so we can preserve their apparent meaning and intention, while producing a statement commensurate with Wikipedia's policies. Here's my suggested edit.
In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, physical appearance and use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and unfounded allegations of smuggling that had originated in India.
What do you think? Opinions please.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That reads pretty well to me, and is a further step away from the article's sometimes flippant past. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Rainer P. (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that this is disparaging or that it makes the article tabloid-like. It's a simple statement by the subject's own people about perceptions of him. Clearly, those were negative and we should be honest about that. However, I don't object to summarizing this quote - we should also summarize a couple of other quotes in this article too. I've made a few small adjustments to the proposed text. First, I simplified the car issue - there's no indication that the mere "use" was the issue. I droppped "unfounded" - just because no charges were brought doesn't mean the allegations were unfounded. Also, there's an error in the next sentence, unless anyone has a source for a press conference in 1976.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance and his Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and the allegations of smuggling that had originated in India. His last press conference was in 1973. [Or: He stopped giving press conferences in 1973.]

That's a more accurate draft, I believe.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...just because no charges were brought doesn't mean the allegations were unfounded. I can't believe you wrote that. Your version neglects to restate that the smuggling allegations were dropped with an apology. And the fact that no charges were brought means exactly that the charges were unfounded. Don't you watch CI Channel? All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This once-suspect never even went to court, and the point being made by the PR team was that unfair press coverage of this issue affected his public image. We must not perpetuate that. If you don't like unfounded, we can look at unsubstantiated. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We should summarize what's in the source, not look for new terms. The smuggling incident is already covered above.   Will Beback  talk  14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote in its original form is clearly and obviously disparaging because it is mocking and belittling in tone. The quote does not specify whether the Rolls was rented, borrowed owned or leased. "His use of a rolls royce" covers all possible scenarios and for that reason "use" should be retained until we can find a reliable source to clarify the situation. I'm not yet convinced that "unfounded" should be dropped. 'Wrongful' would be an good alternative. For the reasons explained above we should paraphrase the quote in a way that makes it clear in the Media section that Rawat was not arrested.--Zanthorp (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance and his use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and wrongful (or unsubstantiated) allegations of smuggling that had originated in India. His last press conference was in 1973. [Or: He stopped giving press conferences in 1973.]

How about this?--Zanthorp (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the source? Where does it say "wrongful" or "unsubstantiated"? This section isn't about the smuggling charges, or the ownership of numerous luxury vehicles - it's about media perceptions of the subject. This specific part is a quotation from the subject's own PR team. We could include a parenthetical aside: ...and the allegation of smuggling that had originated in India (which was never prosecuted).

While we're at it, "that had originated in India" seems rather clumsy and unnecessary - can't we just leave that out since the allegation is already discussed in the article?   Will Beback  talk  16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that last bit again I agree with you. It is clumsy and unnecessary. Based on the info in Leaving India[[43]] I was trying to cram too much into the Media section. My primary concern is to ensure that out of context, incorrect info, i.e. "who was arrested for jewel smuggling" does not end up being used as a source for some other article. That's in keeping with BLVP policy and I don't think I'm being over cautious. The parenthetical aside seems to be a good solution. How about, ...and an allegation of smuggling (which was unsubstantiated and never prosecuted).
We don't always agree but thanks for the helpful input on this.--Zanthorp (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with "unsubstantiated" in the aside if we had a source for it. But I'm not aware of any. Many crimes and infractions aren't prosecuted even when there is evidence, so we can't assume that it was unsubstantiated just because it wasn't prosecuted. Doing so would be a violation of WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" is clearly a POV comment supporting Rawat. The word "allegations" already makes it clear that the charges weren't proven legally. "Unsubstantiated" goes much further to say there was nothing behind them. Leaving it at allegations is clearly the neutral way to go. By the way, "innocent until proven guilty" only has meaning in U.S. criminal proceedings; it does not apply either to Wikipedia fact judging or Indian courts. Msalt (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's very unlikely that a press relations team would make such a statement. It is also unlikely that such a team was composed of so many people. Was that statement made via a press release? Pergamino (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It comes from a UPI article. A copy of it is posted here: [44].   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be from an Associated Press wire, and doesn't mention the number of the press relation staff. Also, I'd think you need to mention the provenance of that statement because it seems to imply an official statement when it is actually a reportage. Pergamino (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, yes. AP not UPI. Here's a different version of the same article:

• Members of the public relations staff, which numbers more than 50, met recently to talk about the guru's image, concluding he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce who was arrested for jewel smuggling." The allusions were to his encounter with a pie-tossing youth in Detroit and the confiscation in India last November of $35,000 in undeclared jewelry and cash, which the mission has said was forgotten by a disciple. The case has not been settled, and the guru had to post $13,300 bond before leaving for his latest world tour. Richard Profumo, 27, who went to prison as a draft resister, told his colleagues at the public relations meeting of a necessity to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility. "We're marketing a commodity which is visible only as a reflection," he said, referring to the knowledge and the peace it is supposed to bring.[ http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/1973/latimes230973.html]

The "provenance" is that it is the conclusion of the subject's own PR staff, as reported by a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seems that both wires are based on the same report. Isn't the provenance, the AP reporter? Otherwise the sentence seems to be describing an official statement of the public relations staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pergamino (talk • contribs)

They are the same report - wire service reports are edited by the individual newspapers that carry them. The AP reporter is reporting what the team concluded, using their words (hence the quotation marks).   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, I see your point about OR, and I'll read that NOR page carefully. Based on our discussions above, here's a proposed final draft with the next sentence added.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, physical appearance and use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). They also spoke of a need "to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility."
  

If this is acceptable, I'll make the edit in the next day or two when I get some spare time.--Zanthorp (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the problem was with his "use" of the Rolls rather than the ownership is an unsupported detail.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and his Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors to judge Rawat's credibility

That's shorter and simpler.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good! That last sentence is more concise. I'll go ahead with the edit using this version as is for now, and if there is any reliable source that says R actually owned the Rolls let's leave it as his Rolls. I'd like to get this right. The source states, "with a Rolls." The source, does not state how he came to be with it. Do you see my point? I think it is speculation to refer to the Rolls as being his. Of course the source does not state that he actually used it, and being with something does not imply ownership either. His use of a Rolls is the best way I can think of at present to paraphrase the source. Maybe you can think of a better way that is not clumsy and does not imply more than the source actually says. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• ...had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and the Rolls Royce...

"The" isn't exactly the same as "a", but it leaves the ambiguity over what aspect of the car the PR team was concerned with.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed :) --Zanthorp (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)