Talk:Prem Rawat

Subpages

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) April 2009 April 2009 – June 2009 – May 2010 (Archive 43) (Archive 44) (Archive 45)

EU Parliament

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

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

Elan Vital, (who closed it's doors in 2010, saying that "New entities have been formed with a similar purpose. Words of Peace International, Inc. (WOPI) is a US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose purpose accords with that of EVI)" , stated that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Links for YouTube:

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

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

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

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

It is important to his notability. If he is notable for booking rooms in government buildings and creating a false image of himself, that is one thing. If he has been invited to speak at those venues by senior government officials, that is entirely another. I am not sure why you cannot find more media mention of this particular event. Here are four that came up out of about 400 on my browser. [2] [3] [4] [5] Rumiton (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

[E/C] I don't speak Italian, but according to Google this article (or whatever it is) says that Rawat was the host and rapporteur ("Ospite e relatore della conferenza").[6] It also says that Rawat was appointed Ambassador of Peace to a small province in Souther Italy, Basilicata, during a concert in 2009. What's that about?

Rawat's notability is as a guru from 1970 to the mid-1980s. He is not notable for his activities in the past 25 years, though we can include activities reported in secondary sources or those which aren't self-serving. This is in the latter category, we we should rely on secondary sources exclusively. Two of the links in the previous message appears to just be listings of which rooms are in use for which events.[7][8] Another appears to just be a news portal that links to articles posted elsewhere.[9]   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

The second link is a blog. Sorry.

The third is another parliamentary diary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. See also [10] though it is largely a repeat of the International Press Agency article. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't think much of Agenzia Internazionale Stampa Estero; the organisation has no entry and no citations in the Italian Wikipedia, and in fact only has a single citation in all Wikipedias combined, the one in this article: [11]. If nothing this organisation has ever reported is considered due for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is hard to argue on that basis that this should be the first such item. However, there is another source: [12] (clicking on this link offers two tabs, one for the article and one for printing it), from the news section of basilicatanet.eu, an Italian government website. What that article mentions – and I feel is notable – is that Rawat has been declared Ambassador of Peace by/for the Basilicata region of Italy. There are a number of references to him in this capacity on the Basilicata regional website: [13], as well as a couple of press reports [14]. (It should be noted that Pittella is himself from Potenza, the capital of Basilicata.) I would drop the sentence "In 2008, the Italian newspaper La Sicilia referred to Rawat as a "messenger of peace".[101]", and instead add something like the following: In 2009, Rawat was made Ambassador of Peace for the Basilicata region of Italy. I'd drop the sentence about the conference, as his participation there really isn't notable enough. --JN466 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point and have no problem with adding the basilicanet award ref. On the other hand, there is enough evidence from a number of sources that the conference invitation was extended by the EU VP, and even if the conference itself is of limited significance, the status of the inviter is a counterargument to the idea that the subject's notability expired around 1980. Given the deliberate media-shyness of the subject, a collection of fairly small pieces of evidence like this may be all we will get. Regarding the reputability of the AISE, I don't feel that absence of mention in the Italian (or any) Wikipedia should be taken as significant. I don't know how developed the Italian WP is. But Google gives 49,000 hits, covering a wide variety of topics, from the activities of Pope Benedict to Italian parliamentary reports. It seems to be a substantial and well-used source of information on Italian-related topics. Rumiton (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I see you made the change and it looks good. Short, punchy and well sourced. Let us continue in the same style. Rumiton (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Subjective or what?

From the lede: "The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15], [16] --JN466 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You often share things that you have "heard" (as in your post immediately above) so should I not equally be at liberty to share what I have learned about Priyan, TPRF and WOPG from both public resources and my own friends within the organisation? You may never have heard of Priyan because the 'major donor' meetings are by invitation only. Priyan exists primarily to provide expenses for operating the Gulfstream aircraft. This is the largest expense for which money is raised for Prem Rawat's operations (as I was hoping to illustrate by sharing the comparative figures). The other fundraising activities are, as you say, WOPG which is a tax deductible charitable organisation and TPRF which is referred to as and the "bases initiative" (raising money to maintain PRs homes around the world). PatW (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011 ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One only has to Google "Prem Rawat Priyan" to come up with multiple sites where anyone can read about Priyan and the other orgs. The Eurocontrol Navigation Domain site lists Prem Rawat/Priyan Foundation as being the user of a Gulfstream 5 jet. PatW (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Your apology is accepted, but in case anyone might be confused by the above, this [18] site gives a better view of what TPRF has been doing in wartorn and poverty stricken areas. This is a primary document, of course, but it also refers to an evaluation by Charity Navigator which has awarded TPRF a 4 star rating [19] for 3 years in a row. This award is given to acknowledge fiscal responsibity and overall effective performance, and is only granted to about 1 in 8 of the charities that apply for assessment. TPRF rated highest in their assessments of similar organisations. According to them, in the last available year, 2009, TPRF distributed $2,215,636 in global aid.[20] Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANOTHER EVENT FOR DEBATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here our original research tells us that:

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Jobs Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation provided

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy.[citation needed] Can we remove the citation needed, in the light of refs above to Hunt and to [22]? Rumiton (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed text above is not what is now been edited into the 'Teachings" section.[23] Did we discard this proposal and make a new one that I missed?   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You suggested that and I found merit with the idea, but also thought it could be improved. That's what I tried to do, bringing the relevant paragraph more into line with sources. As for "doubling the length of the material" I must ask you to read this thread more carefully. I did not add any length, I took away some material that was not earning its keep. This is the diff. [24] You will notice that the word count for this section before I started was 333 words, and when I was done it was 324 words. Rumiton (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Congratulations and thanks

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

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

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

Criticism and Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from a Kriya Yoga site: [25] The word Kriya is composed of two syllables, kri and yâ. In Sanskrit, kri means karma dhatu - action of the elements, and yâ means Soul or Atma. The word Kriya indicates action of the Soul or prâna karma. The first and most important action of the Soul is breath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another European Parliament event invites Pram Rawat

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

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

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

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

I am afraid PR Newswire is not an independent source, they just publish press releases for businesses, foundations etc. However, the Malaysian National News Agency is a recognised source of news that impacts on Malaysia. Since Words of Peace runs in Malaysia, they ran the following article: [26] Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi. Check the crowd at 0:14. The venue overflowed for the first time ever, and they had to turn people away. [27]

2. The Indira Gandhi Stadium. Watch the first few seconds. He is introduced by a member of parliament, and then by the Vice President of India. [28] Again, the venue was full to overflowing.

3. At 0:43 you can see part of the crowd at a recent event in Germany. [29]

4. Yet another recent one. Again, shows part of the crowd. Watch from 1:06. [30]

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

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

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

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

Pledge to Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is some additional input from RS/N, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_source_necessarily_reliable_if_a_secondary_reliable_source_uses_them.3F -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Christmas everyone!PatW (talk)

Causes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If things are noteworthy then they're likely to have been noted somewhere else. In the case of Wikipedia articles, I see a few which mention Causes as a company but only two which mention the actual charities.[31] One of those uses the New York Times as its source: Eric Ding. The other is about a person of questioned notability, and it simply says he leads a group there, with no source: Tochukwu Ipere. So it'd be better to find a secondary source for this information. The problem with primary sources is that there's no filter to help us decide what's noteworthy. Without that filter, we could report all sorts of details from the TPRF's tax forms, etc., which might be true but not significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here was my source for that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disappearing Citations

What do we do when citations are web-based and no longer exist in the source cited? Right now, #99, which is one of two citations regarding last year's words of peace thing in Europe is gone, (the other is still there), but this is, I would guess, a problem that there is already a solution for, anyone know what it is? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reinsert the text (because of the event's actual dignity) and mention the yet fickle nature of the sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove that text. I removed the text that followed as it was inserted without references, without discussion, and without sources I thought were valid (apparently,RS/N agrees with me). I left it for 24 hours so the author could remove it himself but that didn't happen. After removing that text I looked at what was left, and saw that one of the 2 citations doesn't exist, and the other one doesn't instill me with confidence either, but I'd like to keep that text in there if we can. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed and agreed to on 7 Dec. The text I inserted was exactly that proposed by WBB, and you didn't disagree then. And the RS/N did in no way support you. They said that primary sources, if that is what we have here, are fine under certain stipulations, which this reference easily meets. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I might refresh your memory, the criteria are:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; It is a simple fact about an event that happened.
2. it does not involve claims about third parties; It doesn't
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; It doesn't
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There isn't
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. It isn't

These are all true of this event. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Point 5, far from basing the article "primarily on such sources", out of 139 in-line references I can see only 4 that are based on information supplied by the Prem Rawat Foundation. It seems clear to me that a great deal more use might be made of this primary source without infringing WP:RS. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I scroll back, and don't see any proposed text to be inserted, only an idea that you wanted to insert something about this event, I don't see anyone in agreement with it, other than PremieLover, who, based purely on his vast *non*-grasp of Wikipedia guidelines (repeatedly) I must admit, I don't consider to be a strong advocate for your case. Am I looking in the wrong section? I don't see this text of WBB's that you're referring to. Also, there were no citations included with the text, that's a problem. And, as stated in the RS/N section, and as also stated by WBB here, if it's notable, it will be covered by other sources. Where are they?

and your list is a criteria for what?

1. The material links the subject to the parliament of the EU, sounds a little self-serving to me
2. It claims many other participants, and signatories, sounds like 3rd parties (in contrast, a press release that said "we added a new building to our campus" would be fine for example)
3. It claims it was an event at the EU's parliament buildings, I don't think those are related to the source
4. As I said, I don't doubt it's authenticity, I doubt it's notability based on the paucity of sources
5. the article is based *solely* on a press release from TPRF, not a usable source

Oh, and RS/N did in no way support me?!? Here's some snippets from there you may not have seen that don't sound like they are supporting your position:

"if the information is truly worth reporting, secondary sources would have reported it"

" If you mean that content of the press release becomes automatically "factual" if a few newspapers more or less copy it verbatim, then the answer is no"

"it is not yet published and therefore neither the original press release, nor the reproduced ones can be conspired reliably published by a secondary source" (I believe the word he meant to use there was "considered", not "conspired", but if that's disputed I'm sure we can contact the author for clarification if we need to).

And what do you mean "If that's what we have here"? It says right in the articles you provided, "Source: TPRF" what do you think that means? It's not *a* source listed, it's the only source listed! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look again at 7 Dec. "At most, we might combine this with the other speaking engagement and say something like, "Rawat was invited to speak at EP events in 2010 and 2011." That was exactly what I put into the article.

You are muddling everything together again and my brain is starting to hurt sorting them out. There are requirements for notability, and there are requirements for verifiability. The above WP:RS criteria are for primary sources, separate from the secondary ones. The guideline is saying primary sources (which always implies a lower level of notabiity, and that is the point) are fine if the article (the Wikipedia article, not the press release!) is not primarily based on them. Clearly this article is not. The ratio is 4/139.

Please do not denigrate other editors. Thank you and so forth. Rumiton (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I still didn't see the original quote, and still not sure what section I should be looking in (although I did ask), but since you've quoted a section of text here, I'll assume that's correct and that it's what you're talking about, and yes, I don't have a problem with something *like* that, after a specific text is proposed and discussed, assuming it's properly sourced etc, none of which happened in this case, and then you waited over a month to insert it, no wonder I forgot that discussion had even begun. Would you like to continue the process now? I don't have a big problem with the text, just the fact that we can't source it properly, and it seemed to me that it was inserted without our usual due process. Also, I see the muddling you are referring to, you are not discussing the same thing that Rainer and I were when you entered this discussion, Rainer and I were discussing the sources (articles) you presented, not *this* article like you assumed. The RS/N statements I think speak for themselves, they doesn't seem to agree with your conclusion. And finally, denigrate, to criticize unfairly, I don't see how that applies, did I say something untrue about another editor? (And technically, if we want to limit ourselves to the english wikipedia, he's not an editor at all fyi) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, here we go.

1. Whenever somebody edits any Wikipedia page including discussions, they become an editor, and they are entitled to respect and civility. Please do not denigrate them.

2. Press F3 and search on this page for "invited to speak at EP events in 2010" and you will see the quite long discussion that took place in early December. The source is a primary one, repeated by a secondary. As you will see from WP:RS, primary sources are allowed under the outlined conditions, which I believe are adequately met. You say "none of which happened in this case", but in fact it all happened. I did not insert it immediately as I felt these events were interesting enough to merit expansion if better sources could be found. So far they have not been found.

3. Regarding the acknowledged need to only partly base a Wikipedia article on primary sources, you said "the article is based *solely* on a press release from TPRF", which confused the crap out of everyone. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It only confused you, no one else. Rainer and I were having a discussion, you joined in, and were the only one not clear what we were talking about, end of story there. No one was denigrated in my opionion either, I accept that your opinion is different, end of story there too. I don't need to press F3, as I stated above, I'm willing to accept that what you pasted is accurate, however, I don't believe the conditions have been accurately met for us to use this source, as I listed above, it fails in four of the five categories that you listed. Since no further sources have been found, I would say that is a telling point as to whether or not this is a notable event, it doesn't seem so. Also, please don't associate me with other editors crap, that's denigrating. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have a thoroughly discussed and agreed addition being removed with the suggestion "let's discuss". That isn't how it works. I will put it back, and then we can talk about it further if you want to. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that this was "thoroughly discussed and agreed" upon? You had a conversation with *1* other author who said you could at best use something *like* what you proposed, and you yourself felt it would be better to wait for better sources, which you can't find. Let's discuss. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you could also accomplish the same thing, in a far less wordy way by changing "In 2010, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe"" to "In 2010, and again in 2011, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe"", however, that still leaves us a sources problem, the lack of which leads us to a notability problem, I have no objection to adding the text if we have good sources, I personally believe he was there and it all happened, that's not what I am objecting to here, I hope that's clear. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is required so this edit should be reverted. I do not like it when Rumiton arbitrarily decides when topics have been "thoroughly discussed and agreed upon," then goes ahead and makes an edit on this article. Rumiton did the same thing by referring to the reliable sources notice board recently, when, in fact, no conclusion was met by any parties discussing it there. I've been on this article longer than anyone currently writing on this page, so let's not escalate things by jumping the gun on edits. Again, the edit must be removed. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are mostly, but not exclusively, required for Living Biographies. (I am repeating myself here.)

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The definition of notability is that it has been noted by a reputable source. This applies more to subjects of a Wikipedia article than to material being considered for inclusion. If every fact had to be notable to get in, the options above for considering using press releases would not exist, and Wikipedia articles would be very short and uninformative. The event Prem Rawat held in 2011 has been described in a press release and seems to meet the above criteria. I can not agree to removing the fact that he was invited by the Vice President of the EU to the 2010 event, as it is notable in itself and adds to the notability of the subject. It also counters the malicious insinuation (which I have seen made elsewhere on the Internet) that he just rented a room there. Given the well-documented fact of the 2010 Words of Peace event, I think there should be no reasonable objection to adding a short ref to the 2011 event, using the above source. Rumiton (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The material links the subject to the parliament of the EU, sounds a little self-serving to me
2. It claims many other participants, and signatories, sounds like 3rd parties (in contrast, a press release that said "we added a new building to our campus" would be fine for example)
3. It claims it was an event at the EU's parliament buildings, I don't think those are related to the subject
4. As I said, I don't doubt it's authenticity, I doubt it's notability based on the paucity of sources
5. This one is ok too now, as I see you were referring to the wrong article back then, no problem

The way I read the guideline, it only takes one of these criteria to make the whole thing invalid, this one doesn't meet 3 of them. Do you read that guideline as saying something different? If it doesn't violate all 5 it's ok?? I never suggested removing the part about being invited by the vice president of the EU (are you even reading what I write??) RS/N doesn't seem to agree with you that your sources are reputable, I can paste the link again here if you didn't read that the first time either. Show me a source we can use and I will heartily endorse the idea of adding some text to the article to include the 2011 event, after we discuss the exact wording of it here, which shouldn't take long at all. And as an aside, in the past if anything that wasn't "pro-rawat" (for lack of a better term) had ever been added without perfect sources, you know someone would have ripped it out of the article immediately citing bio of living people policy (again and again), I don't know what your objection is to arriving at the best text here in talk before inserting it into the article -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You have jumbled reputable sources, primary sources and notability all up together again and I almost despair of ever sorting them out. But if I misunderstood your suggestion, I apologise. If you were suggesting In 2010, and again in 2011, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe" conference in Brussels, at the invitation of European Parliament Vice-President Gianni Pittella I am happy to concur with you. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This does not exactly meet the facts. The conference motto was "Words of Peace" only in 2010. The 2011 event happened around the issue of the "Pledge to Peace".--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no jumbling, but if it's tough for you to follow, let's deal with the 3 things one at a time, if we can get through all 3, we have a winner! (Albeit, now that Rainer has brought up an important point, my suggestion, which you re-quoted above, isn't going to work). Item 1, We don't have a valid source for adding this, do we? If so, what is it please? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What about my suggestion from 11:55, 17 January 2012? And how do you value assoziazione percorsi sourcewise?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not crazy about the idea of adding text with a note that essentially says "well, we can't back it up, but those of us that were here at the time it was written are reasonably sure it's accurate, trust us", I'm not sure we can do that. Regarding assoziazione percorsi, I don't speak italian, and I don't know enough about them to know what they are, I would have to rely on others expertise. Are you thinking that we should use it as a source for this? and what's the link to the specific cite? And did they cover the event, or just regurgitate the press release again? I re-added the link to RS/N above as I can't seem to find it on this page anymore (refactored?), anyway, in case you missed it, it's also here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on Google translation, it appears that Assoziazione Percorsi is a Rawat-related entity. All of the material there concerns him.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

i fumbled through this site too, and yes it's all about Rawat. What can be the possible reason to present those sites as a source, while the main stream press is not interested in the subject or even held away? Surdas (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we regard it as at least a primary source then? Rawat openly declared that he does not trust main stream media, because he has found himself misrepresented there. It seems he deliberately disregards them as not being helpful to his mission for the time being and he won't compromise with them. I personally can understand a view that mass media are not necessarily a saving power to humanity in every case. So these events are not covered by mass media, and if one cares one has to take a closer look, which is where primary sources come in. The associazione percorsi deals mainly with Rawat's mission regarding content, but I can't see how it is dependent on him. There is at least Gianni Pittella, too, along with a list of signatories, making up for notability. On the backdrop of the article, which is mainly referenced by secondary sources, it seems we can afford a primary source here and there, when it is after all not contended with secondary sources and no better sources are available.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this justice right now, I am trying to get Sinking of the Titanic up to at least GA before the 100th anniversary, but from what I found in the past about Assoziazione Percorsi, they are the Italian version of TPRF. They work with many other organisations and charities, but so does TPRF. They are certainly a primary source. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your Titanic GA article. If they are a primary source, then they suffer from the same problems as I was talking about above (the part where Rumiton listed the 5 things needed, and then I pointed out that it violates 3 of them, and then he posted it again, and then I pointed out that it violates 3 of them, again, that part), so I'm not sure they are helpful. I don't understand why if this was such a big event why there is no other reporting in Europe about this...it's puzzling to me, honestly. But if I use Occam's Razor (for our non-english-speaking friends), I come back to, because it's not notable. Which I'm sure ppl won't agree with, but easy to fix, find a secondary source. Also, Rainer, I don't buy the fact that because PR eshews media coverage that the media won't cover him. That doesn't work for any other public figure that I know of, unless they stay out of the public. If he sold newspapers/magazines/articles, they would write about him, whether he wanted them to or not, I'm sure all the cult books he's listed in aren't written that way because he wanted them to be. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement with Titanic. You pointed out that the information violates 3 of the requirements and I disagreed with you, but perhaps not in enough detail. Let me try again. I think you are imposing impossible restrictions on the information we can include. For example:

1. it is not unduly self-serving; He is a public speaker, and has been since the age of three, including speaking to some very significant people. Why is it "unduly self-serving" to say he is still doing it, when we all agree that he is? If he was a hospital, then your "added a new wing" example might be relevant because that's what successful hospitals do. Successful public speakers go on speaking, and to larger audiences. That's what he is doing. The Websters definition of self-serving is 1...preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. The fact that he speaks in public about inner peace and attracts large crowds (who pay nothing to attend) and the fact that we might report on this, can not be seen in this way. If he was a burger manufacturer, and we wanted to add "his burgers are better than other people's burgers" that might indeed be self-serving.

2. it does not involve claims about third parties; Without another source, we certainly can't refer to the other signatories to the document, but we don't need to. Just to the fact that the event happened, and briefly.

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; I can't see any evidence of this.

The lack of coverage is puzzling at first, as you say, but reporters can't "cover" Prem Rawat's events because they aren't invited to attend them. I know why; I have some personal experience. In the days when they were invited they would find some crying baby and stick a camera in its face then write an article implying there were hundreds of babies, all crying (obviously parental neglect) or they would see an adult crying (from happiness, almost certainly) and give it a caption like "No inner peace for this follower." Or they would vid a long food queue and imply that no one got fed. If this seems like an over-reaction, or that there may be something to hide (there is not), or you happen to believe that newspapers treat their subject's fairly, I can direct you to News of the World. Many other current papers are little better, especially in India. Apart from all that, it is a personal experience, going to an event with Prem Rawat, and people who aren't connected to the feeling there are out of place, especially if they are pushing people up against walls and grilling them (it happened.) So if they want to write anything, they are left with press releases after the fact that tell them what happened. And so are we. But the exclusion of the media is entirely due to their own appalling past behaviour. Rumiton (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If the subject avoids mainstream media, scholars, and other producers of secondary sources then that's his choice. But doing so does not automatically create a loophole in Wikipedia rules.

As for the meaning of "self-serving" - an issue like a prestigious speaking engagement is certainly self-serving. If we want to bring up history, then it's relevant to mention the issue of the purported address to the United Nations. That's how the primary, Rawat-related sources reported it, but other sources gave the event a different spin. Given that and other similar incidents, the Rawat-related primary sources do not have a track record of being reliable on issues like this.

If giving speeches like this is a routine event for a speaker like the subject, then it's not urgent to report any one of them. Let's put this one aside for now and look for speaking engagements that have been reported in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says reliably the Rawat-related primary sources do not have a track record of being reliable on issues like this? And I also have a different opinion on the meaning of "self-serving", the way you put it. But that is perhaps due to a lack of proper understanding of your first language.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors who think Rawat-related sources have a track record of reliability are welcome to present their cases. The burden of proof is on those who wish to add material. (Anyone who wants to review the history of the United Nations material can search the archives of this talk page.)   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof in a court of law is on those who make allegations, and here is no different. You have alleged that his organisations have made false claims. I just searched these archives for "United Nations" and found hundreds of refs along the lines of: "He said he spoke at the United Nations but we know he only rented a room there and packed it with his students" but no such evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing or false information by any of his organisations, please present it here. Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC) And when you say "other sources gave the event a different spin" who were these sources, and how reliable were they? Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Small point here, thanks for explaining the past actions of the media towards Rawat, I'm sure all that happened, and that has a lot to do with his current avoidance of them, however, even if this was a private invite-only event, which I don't believe this was, the press would surely report on someone as notable as the vice-PM of the EU attending some official event in the EU parliament buildings. There are many many examples of people who don't like media attention being in media stories, because inviting or tolerating the media is not a prerequisite for them to write an article. Where I live, there's a big court case about a certain gangster right now, the court is sealed, but I still know who was there, what was done, and who he is. I don't think that's because he wants the media to know, I think that's because the media works independently. Please note, I'm in no way comparing PR to a criminal here, it's just an easy example to make, someone that's newsworthy, gets in the news, whether they like it or not.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond to your other points too...regarding unduly self-serving, if this is quoted in a secondary document, then fine, but in a primary document, here's a simple test, if you didn't know PR and someone said he spoke at invitation of the vice-PM at an EU parliament function, would that raise or lower your opinion of him, or neither? Imo, the answer to that question is the problem with that self-serving criteria. Claims about 3rd parties, if we aren't referring to the people there, or the document (as you suggest), we have a statement that says "PR and his president of TPRF signed a form.". I'm pretty sure that's not what you want in the article. It does involve claims about an event that took place at the EU parliament, and now that I think about it, there just *has* to be somewhere an official record of this event, nothing goes on in our parliament here that isn't recorded. Also, and this might just be an aside, or maybe I don't know something that I should here, but does anyone else find it weird that the press release mentions that the head of the TPRF was the next one to sign the document? I hardly think that person is more notable than others that were said to be in attendance. Is that person notable for anything other than running his TPRF? Might be nothing, just seems strange to me (although, since it's all based on a TPRF press release, maybe not) *shrug*. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"unduly self-serving" is a clear and strong pejorative. It doesn't just mean "something nice" or "something that raises your opinion of the subject." What information would you allow in the article from a primary source?

The fact that the invitation to attend the 2010 event was extended by the EU VP was reported by AISE, which is a RS. No problem with that. But they didn't cover the second event in 2012. The EU daily log mentions the event in its timetable. Do you think that would do? The Vice President of India opened an event with Prem Rawat last year in Delhi in front of 450 000 people. I provided a Youtube vid of the address above. It definitely happened. I can't find any ref in the English language Indian press, but there may be something in Hindi. I am looking.

I don't think it strange that TPRF mentioned Prem Rawat signing the document. There primary purpose is advocate for Prem Rawat in the work that he does. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer the question of what I would accept from a primary source, but I don't think this is it. I'll have to fall back onto what an american politician said about porn, "it's hard to describe, but everyone knows it when they see it". :)

I know you don't mean any harm, but that sounds a little sinister to me. You are putting me in mind of Herman Goering "I decide who is a jew." Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I went so far out of my way to NOT use Adolf Hitler as a good example of how people who don't want media attention can end up getting it anyway, go figure...nice distortion, and that might be the first time I've been compared to him, although I'd like to think I would have bowed out of Dunkirk in favour of, oh I dunno, winning the war maybe? if I had been him! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What is AISE? According to Mr. Google, you either meant:

1. A.I.S.E., the international Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products is the official representative body of this industry in Europe.
2. Association of Iron and Steel Engineers
3. American Intercultural Student Exchange (AISE)

or

4.The Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna (Italian for "External Information and Security Agency"), commonly known as AISE

Come on, you can search these pages as well as I can. AISE is the Agenzia Internazionale stampa estero, an information service for expatriot Italians. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen that term before, and not on these pages that I recall, if I had known it was on here, yes, I could have searched, I just didn't know what it was (but I see it up there now, from waaaay back when :) ). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the EU daily log mention who was there? or just that there was an event with that name? do you have a link to it?

Yes. [[32]] Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think this is for 2010. [[33]] Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) This is Dec 2011. [[34]] Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the current opinion of Wikipedia is concerning youtube as a source, but that wouldn't seem like a helpful video for this instance, but I believe that happened too.

Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source, but if you have any doubts that all these events actually happened, the vids should get rid of them. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not going to repeat myself on the fact of whether the events happened, if we can't prove it to wiki-satisfaction, as you know, it's irrelevant what we believe, as then, is the youtube stuff. Don't make me quote Jossi again, cuz you know I'll do it! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And you mis-read that, I don't think it's strange that PR signed it, I think it's strange that the next person mentioned in the article as signing was the president of the TPRF, someone I've never heard of, and outside of TPRF, doesn't seem to me as anyone notable, esp. considering who else is listed in the press release as being present. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did misread what you wrote. I would be speculating as to why the TPRF president was a signatory. Perhaps it was just done to emphasise TPRF's commitment to the peace and well-being process, and Prem Rawat's involvement with TPRF. The other signatories were all (I think) private citizens. Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the other signatories are mentioned in the press release, some of which sound rather prominent, so ya, it seems odd. Unless you just take it as a press release, and look at it with the view that it puffs up the TPRF a little bit, and there's nothing wrong with that in a press release, in fact, that's a standard legitimate use for one. Also, inserting text into my text is a little cumbersome and tends to hide your edits, might be best to stick to the usual practice of putting your words immediately below the previous words on the subject. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried it both ways. Where a large number of points are raised I think your suggestion (Wiki-kosher though it is) is cumbersomer. Rumiton (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Love the word "cumbersomer", but disagree, aside from which, it refactors my thoughts with interruptions, I don't think you would appreciate it if I refactored your words in any way either, doesn't seem wiki-polite to me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not mind at all, and far prefer it to just ignoring the points I made and letting them disappear into the moutain of text above if you find them hard to answer. (This has been done.) But since you ask so nicely I will try to comply. Rumiton (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to repeat yourself if necessary, I will do likewise as needed as well. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Peace Education Program

[[35]] Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No comments? If there is no objection to this academic source (which seems to be impeccable) I will go ahead and start a new section based on the information it contains. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The source seems initially fine with me, but please put your proposed text here for review before changing the article again, after so much dischord here in the past, and all the work we all went through to finally get the article into some kind of shape, it really makes me a lot less teamwork-y when someone just unilaterally adds text to it without specific discussion of it. As you know, even when we all agree, the final text inserted is seldom the same as what was proposed originally. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Unilateral? Never. But when we do agree, I hope in a month's time no one will jump up and say, Who agreed to that? I wasn't involved! Recount! What has a detergent company got to do with this subject? and so forth. Just saying. Rumiton (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And likewise I hope no one waits a month and tries to slip something in the article by doing an end run around the process and then stand there blinking and looking innocent when they know that's not how it's ever been done around here and so forth. Just saying. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not be hypothetical. We both know no editor here would do that. Rumiton (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a press release. It's issued by the "Associate Director of Media Relations", not by an academic. Press releases are self-published sources, and only usable for the entity that publishes them, in this case UTSA.   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah God, I lost my bet! Someone bet me Will Beback would claim this is a press release, and I said, He can't! This is an official statement by a major US university quoting one of their own senior academics (Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice.) References don't come any more authentic than this, it just isn't possible. Anyway, I'll go ahead and start a precis of the article for a new section. Hopefully we will all see our way through this. Rumiton (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The conference was a few days ago. Once we get independent secondary sources writing about it then it'd be great to include something in the article.

So who is the winner of the bet?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I lost, Will. I will never bet against you again. This is arguably, at a stretch, a primary source for the UTSA conference, which doesn't much matter, but it is secondary for the Peace Education Program. I will write about that. Rumiton (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's acceptable for Rumiton to use a university newspaper for a source, then doesn't logic follow that information in the The Daily Californian article, regarding Rawat's program at University of California-Berkeley, Zellerbach Hall, in 2003, (where former members were not allowed admission) should also be allowed to be mentioned in the 2000s section of this article? Website: The Daily Californian. Wasn't it argued by adherents that The Daily Californian should be disallowed because it's a student newspaper? Sylviecyn (talk)

Are you seriously comparing an official statement by an associate professor at a major American university with an opinion piece by an unknown student editor in a student magazine? And "devotee Jai Satchianand?" A break, please. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prem Rawat#Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji.   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do sources tell us that this guy has any connection to Prem Rawat? I read somewhere he denied it. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything about him that we'd need to add to this article.   Will Beback  talk  07:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why refer to him here? Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This was just a notification of a discussion elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Secretariat ... provided by Associazione Percorsi. "

The last sentence of the press release regarding the EU function says "The Secretariat for the Peace and Well-being conference was provided by Associazione Percorsi.". If, as stated above, the Associazione Percorsi, is a PR-related entity, does that mean they paid for the expenses of this event, or just supplied... something? A/V support? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The word secretariat normally means a permanent government staff. Is this a Google translation? It looks to me like they provided someone to take notes or pour the coffee or something. Maybe you should ask them? Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly how I see secretariat defined, and no, it's not a google translation, it's written on the last line of the press release. Dictionary.com defines it as

the officials or office entrusted with administrative duties, maintaining records, and overseeing or performing secretarial duties, especially for an international organization: the secretariat of the United Nations.

So why didn't they use the secretariat of the EU I wonder... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. No idea. Is it important? Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know yet, Possibly. Possibly not. But it doesn't seem normal, and that's usually a sign that further investigation might need to be done. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take your question to certain internet forums they will come up with some theories that will answer your question to their complete satisfaction. :-) Rumiton (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian source

Nove Colonne (9 Columns) seems to be a reputable source of information for Italian-related topics. [[36]]

They reported on the Pledge to Peace in their December edition:

LA BASILICATA ALLA CONFERENZA SU PACE E PROSPERITA’ (NoveColonne ATG) Potenza - “Occasioni come la Conferenza su Pace e Prosperità sono preziose perché richiamano le istituzioni, le comunità e i cittadini a ricoprire un ruolo decisivo nel lungo e faticoso processo di costruzione della Pace, nella consapevolezza che essa, come sostiene Rawat, è un’esperienza individuale prima che collettiva e rappresenta una responsabilità di ciascuno di noi”. Lo ha affermato il Presidente della Provincia di Potenza Piero Lacorazza in occasione della partecipazione lunedì 28 novembre a Bruxelles, alla Conferenza “Pace e Prosperità. Valori fondanti dell’Unione Europea”, nell’ambito della quale, alla presenza dell'ambasciatore di pace Prem Rawat, è stato presentato “Pledge To Peace”, un progetto europeo volto a promuovere lo sviluppo e l'educazione alla pace per migliorare il benessere delle persone.

TO THE CONFERENCE ON PEACE AND PROSPERITY, BASILICATA (NoveColonne ATG) Power - "Occasions such as the Conference on Peace and Prosperity are valuable because they encourage institutions, communities and citizens to play a decisive role in the long and arduous process of building peace, knowing that, as claimed by Rawat, it is primarily an individual experience but is a collective responsibility to each of us." This was stated by the President of the Province of Potenza, Piero Lacorazza, participating on Monday, November 28 in Brussels, in the conference "Peace and Prosperity. Founding values ​​of the European Union", in which, in the presence of Prem Rawat, was presented the "Pledge to Peace", a European project aimed at promoting development and peace education to improve the well-being of all. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found another ref to the Pledge for Peace in the Rassegna Basilicata dated 28 Nov 11. It is a PDF and hard to auto-translate, but it seems to cover the same ground as the above. Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a search function on the 9columns website you listed, how did you/do I find the article? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I found it with great difficulty and by using the almost superhuman patience I have developed from years of trying to get the Prem Rawat article within about 100 miles of the truth about what this man has done and is doing in his life, and by being constantly obstructed by pedantic editors who demand vast and unrealistic standards for anything that could be considered even vaguely complimentary about the subject. I am glad I got that off my chest. But you can find it easily by clicking on [34] above and searching for "Rawat" on the page that comes up. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget who set the bar for the standards required for information entry into this article, it certainly wasn't anyone that shared my point of view, but they certainly were pedantic, although finding a turkish source and actually handing it out when it didn't even support what they were saying it translated to (on the hope/assumption that no one would bother to check?) may have been considered more ballsy than pedantic, but I agree with you, yes, he was. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the bar set way higher for all living biographies since I started here 5 years ago. I doubt that any current editor would push to include the gossip, slander and uninformed insults that beset this article in 2007 and earlier. It's pretty certain that the publicity this article received was helpful in bringing about this change, which has been positive for Wikipedia, its editors, its subjects and (I am idealistic about this) the human race. But I have nowhere else seen such an iron boom come down on any attempt to just report what the subject is clearly doing on the grounds that it could assist his reputation. I suppose that is a backlash which must be expected and might be temporary. Anyway, we seem to be finding more good sources these days, so hopefully the problem will go away that way. Rumiton (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your Turkish ref is, but the first dilemma I faced here was from an editor who "translated" a German text to produce a highly derogatory series of statements about Prem Rawat which were in the article. Knowing something of the author and speaking German myself, I was astonished that he would say such things. I bought my own copy and lo and behold! Absolute nonsense. He wrote intellectually and understandingly, and with quite a lot of respect, as I would expect from such a scholarly researcher. Anyway, let's move on now into the future. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new sentence

After the current In 2010, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe" conference in Brussels, at the invitation of European Parliament Vice-President Gianni Pittella. In 2011, he again spoke in Brussels at the conference "Peace and Prosperity. Founding values of the European Union." Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are there so many active sections on this talk page suddenly, and why are several of them on the same topic? I dunno... Anyways, great, would love to add that sentence, please give us the link to a source we can use so that we can then include it. I don't think anyone is arguing about whether he was there or not. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno why, and I am feeling very paranoid about it. Oh wait, they are all by me and I am stuck at home unable to run my gardening business because of the weather. Also I figured out Google alerts and realised that I know enough Italian to do a lang search on Google. Expect more of this, it's still raining. The source is the one above to the Italian news site 9 Columns. I am having trouble getting the cite web thing to work. Maybe you might help me there. Rumiton (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Peace Education Program...new section...suggested text

In 2007, Rawat founded the Peace Education Program to help prison inmates develop positive life skills and self-esteem by finding personal peace. The program focuses on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes such as hope, inner strength, compassion, kindness and self-worth. The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail since its inception, and in January 2012 has reached more than 1,000 men. According to Michael Gilbert, associate professor of criminal justice at the UTSA University of Texas at San Antonio; "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed by the warden, chief of security and others in our local Dominguez prison, and to their knowledge, only three or four participants have returned to confinement. Something very constructive appears to be happening, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has taken notice." Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Even aside from the fact that the source is a press release, this is far too much weight to devote to something covered by only a single source.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The information that the university gives us on the success of Prem Rawat's prisoner program is secondary (to the program itself,) and impeccable. It is not a press release from TPRF or anyone else. They are quoting one of their own senior academics, and sources don't get any better than that. OTOH, the advice on the same page relating to their own event is primary; it concerns their own organisation, and would need supporting evidence. No problem, we don't need to mention it unless we find it mentioned elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would separate the two factors, the general TPRF prison program and this meeting, in your own mind. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And here, brought to me by Google Alerts, is some more coverage of the prison program by Univision Channel 41's "News of the Day" with English subtitles, which of course, means more notability. (It's still raining.) Rumiton (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Now that we have two sources, does that double the amount of weight we can give it? Rumiton (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The text of the USTA press release, minus the event info, is 260 words long. You're proposing devoting about 153 words to it. That's undue weight. We have issues and events in this article that have been covered by multiple independent secondary sources to which we give much less space. We have scholarly books that devote entire chapters to the subject which we summarize in a single sentence. Perhaps, based on the minimal coverage we can devote a half sentence to the TPRF prison program. Something like, "TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas, and provides programs for prisoners."   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article now allocates 67 words to a bushfire near his home and the actions of the Malibu Fire Department in the 70s (left there at your insistence) and you want to sum up this highly acclaimed current rehabilitation program in 4 words? Rumiton (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Next event coming up in Malaysia

[[37]] Let's keep an eye on this one as well. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on attempting to insert every event of his life from now on? I'm not going to be ok with that. This is exactly what I was talking about a month ago. I'm happy to include verifiable details about his current life, but I'm not ok with watering down the hugely prominent events of the past until they are only a footnote in this article, unless he is doing things of an even greater scale now (which, yes, I know, you think he is). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, personally I know he is. Multiple international events attended by over 400,000 people and huge viewing of his programs on international TV (Words of Peace). You said you don't doubt these are happening, it just depends on the good people from the press and academe starting to notice. They are starting now (seems to me). I am not sure about inserting everything about these huge gatherings, I think we would get swamped, but in the interest of fairness we need to include the "verifiable details" as you say. Briefly. For a start, how about a new section, 2003 to 2012, at around the same size as that of the previous decades, to be filled out as hard info comes in? That way the very important information on his negotiations with the Malibu Fire Brigade in the 70s and his various changes of address will not be overshadowed by all this new stuff. (Sorry. Sarcasm and heavy irony are not appropriate here, I know.) Thoughts? Rumiton (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's another press release.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Let's watch what comes of it. Rumiton (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

It's evidence that I never clean out my watchlist, but I still have this on my watchlist. I trust you all won't need, or perhaps even want it, but you all know where I am if you need anything. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)