Talk:Prem Rawat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Spirituality (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Prem Rawat (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:


Subpages[edit]

Personal vs. Official[edit]

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

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

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

New source[edit]

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

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

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

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

Rainer P. is correct. Rani Singh is a legitimate journalist who works both for the BBC, Forbes India, and is a contributor for Asian Voice newspaper. This is her profile on LinkedIn. The section Rainer P. has linked to above, that includes the blurb about Rawat, is part of her column "Leading Lights." Sylviecyn (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
i don' mind if she is reliable. I only wonder why this is referenced by issuu.com. We have a lot of sources on ex-premie.org that are reliable too, but won't be usable because of self publishing. Surdas (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Pledge to Peace / WAF[edit]

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

"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament[1], whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 [2]. Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) [3]. Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. [4]WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment.[5]“--Rainer P. (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the nth time I'm not "simply rejecting it", I'm rejecting it for reasons that have been given before (not only by me). Unless these reasons are acknowledged I don't think we'll be getting anywhere, least of all consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Rainer P., :I don't think it's appropriate for you to list more programs Prem Rawat attended this year. You already have a sentence indicating a 2014 program, as well as a whole paragraph announcing his appointment as "Ambassador of Peace." Any more than that is promotional. I don't want to get into another circular argument here. I'm busy, and you've had plenty of objections that were laid out clearly on this page, as well as in archives. If you type "ambassador of peace" into the archive search box at the top portion of this talk page, you'll find the old conversations, which constitute non-consensus among editors. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is still self publishing, create an account upload the magazine, done. See at http://upload-magazin.de/selfpublishing-guide/2010/08/19/plattformen-fuer-e-mags/ , it's in german to make sure you understand it. So whatever magazine i like to promote, i upload it to issuu.com and create a reliable source with it? Surdas (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Rainer P., you have submitted proposals which reached concensus and were placed into the article, all related to "Ambassador of Peace." Going over and over the same argument isn't constructive. There's no consensus for your edit. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Ambassador of Peace, new source[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

would be a good idea (see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace' for reasons, references etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
i agree, i think this more complete, go ahead so far i am concerned Surdas (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Francis's suggestion for the first sentence of the lede: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Re. large parts of talk page contributions bolded: bad style, comparable to WP:ALLCAPS. Also, when we're talking about the intro of the article, doesn't make clear what would be bolded in article namespace, for instance I would never put "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace." as opener for the article, but I would "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador of Peace."
Re. "You are not really addressing my objections": I had explicitly referred to Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace', where in fact these objections were addressed. Please address the replies to these objections instead of going {{round in circles}} (see template above on this page).
Re. going back to the olden days when this article tried, even more than today, to "convey" something. No, for all sorts of reasons, among others: Wikipedia articles should be informative, they should however not try to convey a message or whatever. Every accumulation of facts is in and by itself "meaningless", unless for the one who reads it. I choose accumulation of facts, not trying to convey something. The only prerequisite for the accumulated facts is readability.
Re. "should not be a collection of names people have been called, but of facts" and "semantic difference between 'being called' and 'being referred to as...'":
  • Neither 'being called' nor 'being referred to as...' is the wording of the proposal: the proposal writes "also known as...". Please reply to the facts. Don't read something different than what is written, and then give a reply to something that isn't the topic of the proposal.
  • What a person is known as are the facts, how these facts are perceived ("Makes him look like ..." etc) is none of the concern of those providing the facts. Again we're not here to convey a message, nor an embellishing message, nor any other type of message.
  • For comparison: article: Rajneesh, analysis of first sentence (all bolding as currently used in article):
    • starts with actual name: Chandra Mohan Jain
    • flag for start of list of what the person also was known as: "also known as ..."
    • alternative names and qualifiers in first sentence:
      • Acharya Rajneesh
      • Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
      • Osho
      • Indian mystic
      • guru
      • spiritual teacher
For the non-capitalized qualifiers in the first sentence proposal for Rawat's article: we can't write "is a" inspirational speaker, while that was limited to a certain period in the subject's life. So works fine as an "also known as". Same way as for "guru": for Rajneesh that works fine as "was a ... guru", while as for Rawat we can't do "is a ... guru", for the same reasons: limited to a period of his life, so the proposal is: "known as ... Guru .... --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

In the source given, he's called "international ambassador for peace"... not "International Ambassador for Peace" -- no caps, and you can't add caps since that changes a description to a title, which are two different things.
For my part I'm all for throwing in as many grandiose titles as you can dig up... Creator of the Universe or Lord Master of All Creation or whatever people have thought up, since I don't like him and the more you pile this stuff on the more ridiculous he looks. I wouldn't worry about it too much either way. Herostratus (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. "for": correct for the 2006 title, conferred by Pierre Weil (UNIPAZ), later: "of" for a similar title conferred by Basilicata Region of Italy (etc.)
Re. capitalization of "Peace", that's what Rawat made of it on his own website: "Ambassador for Peace ... 2006: Title first conferred by Pierre Weil, rector of the International University of Peace, UNIPAZ Florianopolis, Brazil"
per WP:SELFPUB I amend my proposal for replacement of the first sentence of the article by:

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

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well, he capitalized it on his own website, that's very different, why didn't you say so. Still, I we ought to be able to do better than this. Since we're valorizing someone who obviously has nothing interesting, worthwhile, or new to say, why not pull out all the stops. I mean here's a guy who is Lord of the Universe for crying out loud. Let's not damn with faint praise, here.
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace, Creator of Space and Time, Wisest Human, and Almighty God. Rawat holds the single-season Major League Baseball record for Runs Batted In, wrote the songs for the musical Carousel, once scored 11 holes-in-one in a regulation 18-hole golf game, served two terms as Governor of Maryland, and is a member of the North American Bridge Association Hall of Fame and the College of Cardinals.
Or whatever. None of this is going to make Rawat any more intelligent, useful, interesting, or valuable, though. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please leave your personal feelings out of this. See content of the {{Calm}} template on top of this page: "Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I am calm. It's you people who want to proclaim that the guy is Lord of the, you know, Universe. So who's showing hysteria here, in the classic meaning.
Ambassador of peace is a pretty high bar, there. Even Herbert W. Armstrong only gets "he described himself as an 'ambassador without portfolio for world peace'". And Armstrong was an AAA-level charlatan, not some bush-league wannabe. Since its a high bar, we want multiple notable people indicating that this person is indeed, generally seen to be in the same league as Gandhi and so forth as an actual "ambassador of peace".
The Queensland Times... first of all, Queensland is a sparsely inhabited patch of mostly desert. But Brisbane and Townsville are fair sized towns. But the Queensland Times doesn't serve them. It serves Ipswich. It has a circulation of 10,000. It's not a particularly notable source for areas outside its area of remit, which is events occurring in and around Ipswich rather than who is or is not an major player on the world stage. I don't know much about Joel Gould. He does appear to own a shirt with a collar, which is something I guess, although not, apparently, a tie. He does not have a Wikipedia article and appears to have made little impression on this world, although there are a number of other Joel Goulds who have -- a lawyer in Illinois, a doctor in California, and so on. Unfortunately, our Mr Gould cannot piggyback on these other more notable Joel Goulds.
So some outback stringer for a third-rate rag decided to copy material material from a press release and his editor let him. What has that to do with the price of eggs? Nothing. Please stop trying to ride your hobbyhorse here. Come back when you have multiple cites from actually reliable and notable sources of people who have the standing, reputation, and intellectual chops to think about that matter who have decided "You know what? I've looked at this guy's career and I think 'ambassador of peace' really describes him". Herostratus (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
yes, with a superficial view on the matter you can describe him anything you want. you don't even have an idea what he is promoting("Knowledge", Meditation). He hasn't brought peace to no place in the world since, in contrary to his promise he made when he was giving his peace bomb satsang. Defenders say he was just 12 twelve yerars old, but that would mean that he wasn't knowing what he was talking about and thus he would be nobody you could follow ,if you think this through. But you probably hear of this for the first time Surdas (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on first sentence of the article[edit]

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

Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment What is this? a pile-on laundry list of names and honorific titles? The name of the person and maybe one honorific will suffice. The article’s body can include references to other honorific or terms or endearment (providing there are reliable sources that attest that these terms have been widely used). See for example Mother Teresa : Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C., commonly known as Mother Teresa or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi […] He is also called Bapu (Gujarati: endearment for "father") in India. See also MOS:HONORIFIC- Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sylviecyn: Arbitration is never used for content disputes. RFCs are a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes. Once 30 days have elapsed, an experienced and uninvolved editor (often an administrator) will formally close the RFC with a recommendation (unless the editors involved in the dispute agree to resolve it on their own). RFCs goal is to seek outside input, and if you don’t see that as useful, why to conduct an RFC in the first place? If outside editors all tell you that the long list of honorifics are “ridiculous”, “empty”, “meaningless”, and “unencyclopedic and POV” it is because that may very well be the case. Use the article body to present and explain these titles, if you have the sources you say you do, but the lede should include the just name of the person as per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel:
  • just to avoid misunderstandings: it was I who called the RfC, not Sylviecyn (see above why I called the RfC).
  • (general, also for the others commenting here) — it's not the Wikipedia editor's fault the subject of this article has been known under various names, same as it is not the WP editor's "fault" that Peter Schickele is generally much better known under another name. Each article subject has his/her specifics, and we're looking here for the best approach to those of Prem Rawat. Calling the title of an award-winning documentary related to Rawat “a joke” is maybe not the sort of input we're most looking for, but it may be indicative of how a first-time reader of the article might experience this. So indeed, some precaution is needed. Thus far the input is productive, in the sense that, e.g., it inspired me to explore the infobox route (see below), so that we may condense the intro, and need no long pile-on sentences there. That is, if we can find a consensus in that direction. So please, keep contributing to this RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the relevance of the aliases?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned here by bot. No it is not all right to add all those honorific titles, if that is what they are. They should be in the body of the text. They are ridiculously unencyclopedic and POV. Coretheapple (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Also summoned by bot. No. By this 'logic', the introductory sentence to Elizabeth II should be, what, a thousand words long? A 'title' given in a lead sentence is there because it is something that is used as an alternative to a person's name, not because it is simply an honorific they have received from someone. Unless there are independent reliable sources that actually use these terms an a substitute for his name, then they should not be in the lead sentence. Show me a few RS that use "Ambassador of Peace" or "Lord of the Universe" as a name for him, without some kind of qualification to let people know who they are talking about, and then the listing of them in the introductory sentence could be reasonably argued for. Reventtalk
  • Comment - These honourifics are empty and meaningless - even the queen of England doesn't have all her titles in the lede, and hers are real. Zambelo; talk 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've listed the seven names and (honorific) qualifiers included in the first sentence of the Rajneesh article above, so I don't think the proposal is all that excentric.
  • Elizabeth II has little value for comparison, see Sylviecyn's argumentation below, which I second.
Watkin Tudor Jones
Birth name Watkin Tudor Jones
Also known as Ninja
Max Normal
The Man Who Never Came Back
MC Totally Rad
Yang Weapon
Destructo
Waddy
WAD:e[1]
Born (1974-09-26) 26 September 1974 (age 40)
Johannesburg, South Africa
Genres Alternative hip hop, rave
Years active 1995–present
Labels Interscope, Cherrytree,[2] Polydor, Rhythm Records
Associated acts Yolandi Vi$$er
The Original Evergreen
MaxNormal.TV
The Constructus Corporation
Fucknrad
Die Antwoord
  • Looking for a non-royal BLP the closest I could find for a "multiple a.k.a." example is Watkin Tudor Jones, where the lead paragraph only refers to the best known of these a.k.a.'s, while all the others are listed in the infobox (apart from their further treatement in the article itself). See example at te right. Wouldn't that be an acceptable idea for something that could be implemented for the Rawat article? See what this could look like for Rawat, below on the right (just a brainstorm preliminary proposition, might need to be hammered out in the details):
Prem Rawat
Prem Rawat 2007 cropped.jpg
Prem Rawat in Lisbon, Portugal 2007
Born Prem Pal Singh Rawat
(1957-12-10) 10 December 1957 (age 56)
Haridwar, India
Other names Maharaji*
Guru Maharaj Ji*
Balyogeshwar*
Occupation inspirational speaker*
Years active 1966–present
Organization The Prem Rawat Foundation
Known for Peace Bomb satsang*
Techniques of Knowledge
Millennium '73
Lord of the Universe (film)
Peace Is Possible (book)
Notable work(s) Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?*
Words of Peace
Title Satguru* (Perfect Master*)
Movement Divine Light Mission*
Elan Vital*
Spouse(s) Marolyn Rawat
Parents Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Rajeshwari Devi
Relatives Satpal Maharaj
Awards Ambassador for Peace
Website
premrawat.com
Notes
* obsolete and/or no longer supported/distributed by Rawat and his organizations
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Rainer P.: above I wrote "example ..., where the lead paragraph only refers to the best known of these a.k.a.'s, while all the others are listed in the infobox (apart from their further treatement in the article itself). ... Wouldn't that be an acceptable idea for something that could be implemented for the Rawat article?" — so, yes I'm exploring that possibility.
  • Re. Peace Bomb satsang: I seem to remember it is related to a mentioning in the The Guinness Book of World Records. Yes it might ring a bell for some readers. Might mark it as obsolete too though, not sure, what do others think? Anyhow, it is in the article, end of last paragraph of Prem Rawat#1960s, a bit out of chronology while the Peace Bomb address was 1970. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Tweaked the sample infobox a bit in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. "...Lord of the Universe..." Is this a joke? Of course, an article can't open with a list of fancruft honorifics. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • added "obsolete" indicator to some of the names in the sample infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "Anything But Normal (archived)". Levi's Original Music Magazine. 9 September 2008. Retrieved 27 July 2014. 
  2. ^ Die Antwoord to sign with Interscope, Neill Blomkamp to direct next video Boing Boing
  • Comment - What is this rubbish. This RFC is an abuse of process. AlanStalk 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Why would the RfC be an "abuse of process"? And if so, what process would you recommend? As such the comment is totally unhelpful, as well regarding the content of the question asked in the RfC, as regarding the suitability of the process used. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you or those of the "regulars" here who support your proposal realise quite how far you've strayed from some fundamentals of Wikipedia. You should close this RfC and forget the whole idea. No article should ever list the types of honorifics you want in the way you want. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Tx for the input. Remains vague however. Which fundamentals? Who should close the RfC? It's not recommended that involved parties (like those commenting here, or those who started the RfC) close it unilaterally. Feel free to list at WP:ANRFC if you feel strong about this. What other process would you recommend when {{Round in circles}} applies? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — as far as I'm concerned, the focus of the RfC has shifted from a proposed rewrite of the opening sentence (which I'm no longer petitioning) to a proposed update of the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Re. "international speaker": "international" is not part of a job description. There are enough references for the "inspirational" part, which is indeed indicating a type of speaker, so part of the job description.
    • Re. "Humanitarian leader" as "occupation": really? Never saw a reliable source use that qualification, and certainly not as an "occupation" description.
    • Re. "Ambassador of Peace" as an "award" or a "title": has been discussed before (see archives, I think most recent archive page). Listed as "award" on personal website, so per WP:SPS: "award". Again, please refrain from moving in circles w.r.t. content cleared after a discussion filed in the archives.
    • Re. "And he is not really known for Lord of the Universe, that was only (..whatever...)": really? Lord of the Universe (film) has been cleared multiple times after (repetitive) discussions contained in the archives (multiple pages). Some people don't "like" it, so much is clear, but that doesn't affect the content of the article.
    • Re. "Pacific Branding Lifetime Award". a.k.a. Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Brand Laureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award. Afaik has only one (independent) source. Not sure whether its significance merits inclusion in the infobox. A lot of things are "quite exclusive", doesn't signify automatic inclusion in an infobox.
      • Re. [1] - still only local news in the country where it happened. Not convinced yet this is infobox matter. What do others think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Re. "Satguru/Perfect Master is not really a title, but rather his position in his originating movement" hence a title in his originating movement. That's what title means.
    • Re. "Guru Maharaj Ji was actually a title...": nothing in the text quoted from Hummel indicates "title". The text doesn't contain the word (nor anything in that vein in German). Also, of no importance: it was what he was known as, whether a title or not. It has been indicated as an "a.k.a." in the first sentence of the article for many years now, without much opposition (and indeed, that first sentence is apparently not going to change anywhere soon), so there shouldn't be any problem to list it in the same way in the infobox.
    • Re. "works": only the most significant for a public not limited to his followers. It's about the works that have proven to be significant, not what his followers would like to promote (see WP:NOT).
    • Re. Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? authorship: discussed over and over (see archives). The book contains a substantial amount of speeches (satsangs) by Rawat. Other content (like an introduction) was added, and Rawat's texts were edited by someone else, but the book is no less a notable collection of his works.
    • Re. "things missing in the article": when there hasn't been any consensus to mention them in the article, we're certainly not going to mention them in the infobox. Again: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those who'd like to promote Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

- I won't argue over international or inspirational.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those comments are not helpful. I could say the same thing about adherrents but I refrain from shooting darts, and even have agreed to a couple of your recent article edits. The same respect from you would be appreciated. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ? Apparently still the same misconceptions about the RfC process:
    1. RfC is not intended to "prevent" anyone from participating, as I said before.
    2. The current RfC is ongoing, it would be bad manner to call another one while the current one is ongoing. As such the whether-or-not to mention the Brand Laureate in the infobox question is part of the current RfC (since the focus of that RfC has shifted from first sentence of the article to infobox, and the question is under the header of this RfC). As said before, if you'd like to close this RfC prematurely (instead of automatically in somewhat less than two weeks): → WP:ANRFC. But then, that wouldn't be a good idea since the new ideas that have sprung up in the ongoing RfC lately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Response to RfCs comments here[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

I think the spontaneous reactions of uninvolved editors are very helpful, as they provide a chance to compensate for a tendency not to see something obvious for others looking from outside at one's familiar domain (in German we have a word for that: 'betriebsblind'). This is how the article style impacts on a non-biased information-seeking person, and the comments give editors valuable hints for improvement.
BTW the Shri-Hans-Production 16mm-film 'The Lord of the Universe' was not produced nor offered for general public, but used intimately within the group of Rawat's students in the early seventies. There was a devotional song translated from India, 'The Lord of the Universe', from which the film derived its title. The other film was produced by non-adherents for U.S. Television and carried the title „Lord of the Universe“ in a clearly sarcastic connotation. The title was never used as a substitute or alternative for a name, except to ridicule the subject. So it might turn up in WP as a controversial oddity, if at all, in the text body, but certainly not in the first line of the summary.
There are however several good sources for the growing public use of the title Ambassador of Peace to announce the subject in public media. It has been bestowed on the subject by at least three independent institutions for his merits. Not really obvious why that should be less „real“ than any merely inherited title.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Please let me add for clarification: The words of that old devotional song went: "The Lord of the Universe has come to us this day, and he's come to show us the light, and he's come to show us the love, and he's come to show us the way back to our Father.", and the chorus went: "Open up your heart to the Universe of Love, and he will fill you up." In the lyrics it is made clear that it's about the 'Universe of Love' - and he's is apostrophized as the Lord of THAT. It was never a title or part of his name, but a poetic figure, not the imperialistic outrage, that mass-media have sarcastically tried to make it sound like. If it were mentioned at all in a BLP, it needs to be embedded in the appropriate factual context, as an example of the style western media covered his activities - not uncommented in the lede. That appears "ridiculously unencyclopedic and POV", indeed.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. 'betriebsblind': I had hoped for somewhat more direct interaction between the "regulars" and the outsiders I invited by RfC, not the regulars creating their own separate corner. That's why I answered above (apart from this note). I see some of the external commentators gave answers to the regulars (despite the section title separator), which I think a good sign. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Francis, I wasn't sure if the "regulars" were supposed to interact here. It seemed to me, the outsiders' first impression was quite reasonable ("DeCausa:...'Lord of the Universe...' Is this a joke?") It's not a joke, as it's not funny, it is plain derision. I have offered explanations above. It is the main reason for my firm resistance to your proposal. BTW "Known for 'Peace Bomb satsang'..." - really? You think a reader will go: Oh, that was him? It should also go into the history section, as well as the whole Millennium-73-issue. Would make the lede shorter and more concise, if that's your objective.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Rainer P., would you please start another section with your written proposal(s) along with with reliable sources? That way we can start fresh and calmly discuss your proposals. Please don't change anything without concensus. You know I've been accommodating to your previous proposals, so I welcome a draft so we can discuss. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
#Pledge to Peace / WAF --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ethnicity?[edit]

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

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

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

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

Lead first paragraph[edit]

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

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

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

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

I suppose we can take this up again here on the active talk page where the last discussion on this topic was left unconcluded: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2. OK if everyone reads it there, or would it be best to copy that discussion back here (in order not to double what was already said)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you proposing that "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" be removed from the lede, too? Rawat's current followers still call him Maharaji. How are those honorifics perjorative? They are terms in hindi that in no way are critical of him. "Maharaji" means "great king." The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru, when he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, as well as the huge publicity he achieved by the mainstream press during his first years in the west. The vast, and I mean vast majority of reliable sources, including books and articles by scholars of new religious movements, refer to Rawat a cult leader and by the honorific Guru Maharaj Ji. Additionally, something it not libel or perjorative if it's true. All of this material has been already meticulously sourced. Sylviecyn (talk)
(e.c.) Littleolive oil shouldn't split that part of the discussion of in a new section while there's still an RfC ongoing about the first sentence above, see #RfC on first sentence of the article. I don't want to run ahead of the closure of that discussion, but seems like there's going to be no change to the first sentence, nor the addition, nor the removal of anything ("Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" are well known a.k.a.'s in the older literature, there's virtually no mentionings of "Prem Rawat" in those sources that are still widely available in newspaper's websites, google books etc.; Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect, thus recognition-wise it should be mentioned too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
if somebody is in favour of NRMs, maybe because he or she is engaged in one or another themselves, TM for example, it makes sense to support another NRM, because they may then stick together and push POVs positive of their subjects. I don't know if it is true, but i saw exactly that with jossi and zappaz a long time ago, here. Surdas (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, speculation is maybe not what we need right now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
¿Some regard Prem Rawat a cult leader? That should be "regarded", in the seventies and perhaps eighties, nowadays probably mostly old ex-premies from that time.¿The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru? ¿Not the more than 50 events in different cities around the world every year, some of them in universities and institutions of international prestige, addressing millions, after he was a boy? ¿His current followers still call him Maharaji? I am a current follower and I have not seen nor heard the word Maharaji for decades. Most young premies don’t even know that word. All publications and all events use the name Prem Rawat since more or less the times of Elan Vital if I remember right, looong ago. --PremieLover (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's clarify:

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

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

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

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

Proposal Sylviecyn[edit]

Okay, maybe we can do this: Leave in "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaji" and take out Balyogeshwar, which was not used much in the west as he got older. What the heck. I'm sick of fighting over this. So my proposal is to change the first sentence of the lede, as well as removing all and/or parts of two sentences that discuss his being described as a cult leader, which is covered in the beginning of the "Reception" section. And, the criticism of "intellectual content" and "lifestyle" bits are also covered in the body of the article under "Lifestyle." Maybe that will satisfy Oliveoil's suggestions. Let's make some progress.  :)
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. and Balyogeshwar Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1] He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and a charismatic religious sect. and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5] He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9]
It's a rough draft, meaning I'm trying to be flexible. In writing, my believe is that less is more. Please review and let's discuss. Thx Sylviecyn (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
see [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This draft is Ok and I could support it. The DLM content edges on coatrack content so is what I would have removed, but its fine left in with the other changes. Rather than argue I'll be happy to go along with Sylviecyn's efforts... and thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC))
Sylviecyn's proposal sounds reasonable to me. Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji may formally be honorifics, but actually were used as names over many years. I guess many students have only learned much later of his civic name Prem Rawat. So I think it is justified to mention them in the summary.
I would like to modify the following sentence about the aprupt appearance of the hitherto unheard oi DLM in the West in a coherent way, so that it becomes clear that it had already climaxed in India, when Prem came to the West as a child, just to avoid creating a distorted image. Then the cult bit, followed by the ambassador of peace bit. Opinions/suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This concludes the discussion of the modification of the third sentence of the lede, where there is consensus to implement "step 2" = "option 1". Two suggestions have come up which haven't been fully discussed yet, but don't relate to the third sentence of the lede as such: for these topics two additional subsections are created: #New section on organizations (Francis' suggestion) and #Balancing fourth sentence of the intro (Rainer P's suggestion) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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


I propose to remove

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

from the lede. The article is on the person, not the DLM organization (which has a separate article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. DLM has its separate article but the sources refer to both the titular leader of the organization, Prem Rawat, and DLM, the organization. Additionally, DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death. It's a short sentence and should remain, imo, because it informs the readers. Also, Francis, please don't make any edits to the article unless they've been discussed here and consensus has been reached. That's a long-standing practice on the Rawat articles. Thanks! P.S. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
All of what you say above is still in the lede, including what sources say more specifically about Rawat ("... has been called a cult leader ...")
It's about the summary in the lede.
While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:
==Organizations==
(...short explanation...)
===Divine Light Mission===
Main article: Divine Light Mission
(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)
===Elan Vital===
(...short explanation...)
===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===
(...description...)
So you see it's not about losing the content, but shortening the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

As we seem to agree on Sylviecyn's proposal, is there any reason to delay making the edit?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Pardon? We didn't agree at all on Sylviecyn's proposal. As nobody seems to object to mine (after bringing it for the second time to this talk page), I propose to implement that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Francis, the thread appears a little tattered. I mean Sylviecyn's proposal: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. and Balyogeshwar Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1] He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and a charismatic religious sect. and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5] He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9] She, Little Olive and I agreed on that. Your proposal has been vaporized by the RfC, hasn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Can't agree with that proposed edit, for the reasons explained in my older proposal (brought back to this current talk page above), and in part also for the recent RfC being closed on a "no change" for the first sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Have I missed something? Wasn't it your older proposal that was rejected, including its reasons, and the RfC closed with that, not with "no change", as you twist it now. After that came Sylviecyn's proposal, with a rare and precious agreement by her (opponent), me (supporter) and LittleOlive (neutral). What is your agenda? That POV lede paragraph has been there for much too long, and you should not obstruct an overdue improvement, that has been achieved in painstaking collaboration.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the older proposal, as copied above received no further comments after I had answered Syliecyn's initial reserve, see above, which seems like "nobody objects" to the ammended proposal to me. At least up till now, and including Rainer P.'s last comment, nobody has given any *reason* why it wouldn't be a good idea.
That is the proposal "regarding third sentence of lede (and possible additional section on movements/organizations)" (as the title of this subsection has it).
Regarding first sentence of the lede: no change per recent RfC.
Regarding fourth sentence of the lede: for now I oppose any change to that sentence (and its references), and would only discuss it again once agreement on the third sentence has been reached. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe 'nobody objects' is just your perception of 'nobody can find it'. Anyway, as we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal, I feel we should go on.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Re. "nobody can find it" — nonsense;
Re. "we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal" — we haven't, for the third or fourth (or is it fifth?) time in this talk page section, see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'm getting too old for such a high-handed communication style. It seems, that you're the only one opposing Sylviecyn's proposal, and you have a very round-about and wearing manner of arguing.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with the proposal of Sylviecyn or Rainer. Though I would mention "...was considered in the seventies (or "and eighties") as a... --PremieLover (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
would anybody answer Francis question about his rationale please? Otherwise i would oppose! Surdas (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Francis, please kindly repeat or point directly to your proposal, incl. *rationale*, I'm getting lost in this thread. Must be old age.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your signpost, Francis, but really, I am the only one who can't make sense out of it? Can somebody simply show me, what that proposal was? I feel like I'm being given the roundabout again.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
[3] --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Instead of cutting up this discussion with older discussions (which is confusing and doesn't flow with the current discussions) I suggest we continue to discuss my proposal above. I don't believe it's against Wiki rules for an editor to change one's mind as I did. But, we have reached agreement and consensus, so I propose we come to a decision about the lede's first paragraph soon. My understanding of the Rfc is that they did not agree with Francis' proposal to change the lede's first sentence (the one I originally agreed with with all the honorifics), but I don't find anywhere in the Rfc where they said we should not edit the lede. Therefore, I invite Francis to make a counter proposal on mine, otherwise, at this point I think we have consensus to make the change soon. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no "agreement and consensus". My proposal is above (prior proposal, counterproposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
All I can find is: I propose to remove: ", which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion" from the lede. The article is on the person, not the DLM organization (which has a separate article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)" ,
and I still agree. I also agree with Sylviecyn's proposal, deleting Balyogeshwar and Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5] He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[6][7] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[8][9] These are not much in contradiction and it can be combined: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge."[1]. He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). These could be the first three sentences, nice and short. I agree with Olive and Francis, that DLM should not be used as a coatrack for introducing the cult-word in such a pushy and apodictic manner. The criticism-sentence should be reviewed (e.g. footnote Nr. 9 (Stephen Hunt) doesn't support what is being said before) and moved to a place behind descriptive content.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3rd & 4th sentence options[edit]

Option 0 (keep as is) 
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[1][2] and in anti-cult writings.[3][4]
Option 1 (Francis) 
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[1][2] and in anti-cult writings.[3][4]
results in:
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[1][2] and in anti-cult writings.[3][4]
Option 2 (Sylviecyn) 
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[1][2] and in anti-cult writings.[3][4]
results in:
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion.
Option 3 (Rainer P) 
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports[1][2] and in anti-cult writings.[3][4]
results in:
He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM).
References
  1. ^ a b c d e Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
  2. ^ a b c d e Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
  3. ^ a b c d e Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. 
  4. ^ a b c d e Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.

Discussion[edit]

  • Option 1 — remove the long unreferenced sentence part that is about one of the organizations, but not about the person. This is a biographical article, so shouldn't give details about perception of the organizations in the lede. There are currently two separate articles about the organizations (if these were conflated with the biography of the person the lede would be different, but they aren't, they are in separate articles, one of which has this "perception of DLM" sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, with a reference)
So should be removed from lede per unreferenced and per inappropriate for this article. It is also inappropriate in the lede of this article while DLM has been, over the complete period it has been named thus, not always and/or not completely under Rawat's remit, as has been established multiple times. So, saying something in general about an organization the subject of this biography is only partially responsible for, is misleading.
There isn't much difference between options 2 and 3 as far as I'm concerned, because if option 2 is chosen, eventually the inappropriate part discussing the perception of the movement needs to be removed (there really isn't much choice there: it is inappropriate in the lede of this article per Wikipedia's commitment to high standards).
Thus I would do (as I always said): [a] Take this step by step (not trying to do too much at once); [b] proceed now with what has been called "step 2" in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2, or "option 1" above, and take it from there once that step has been taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for laying it out so clearly (option 4 is probably meant to be option 3). I could go along with option 1, but it needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.
Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I choose Option 1, agreeing with Francis' logic that the previous sentence isn't referenced, and because the article is about Rawat, not the organizations. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
i go with option 1 as well Surdas (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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


New section on organizations[edit]

Above I wrote:

While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:
==Organizations==
(...short explanation...)
===Divine Light Mission===
Main article: Divine Light Mission
(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)
===Elan Vital===
(...short explanation...)
===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===
(...description...)

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

Certainly. We should be careful though, that the whole thing won't spacewise heel toward the amply sourced, but really obsolete DLM stuff of days gone by, at the expense of important modern developments. In that also stale items like the " Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" (Media-section) could be revised. A short naming and characterization of each org should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
My stab at this:
==Organizations==
Rawat inherited the first organization he was associated with (Divine Light Mission) from his father. Moving away from the trappings of Indian culture and religion, he later established Elan Vital and Words of Peace International, independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles, and not bound to the traditions of India. The more recent organizations, like also The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) founded in 2001, add more focus to humanitarian efforts.
===Divine Light Mission===
Main article: Divine Light Mission
The Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad; DLM) was an organization founded in 1960 by guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj for his following in northern India. During the 1970s, the DLM gained prominence in the West under the leadership of his fourth and youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). Some scholars noted the influence of the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, but the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion.[1] DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion.[2]
===Elan Vital and Words of Peace International===
DLM was disbanded when Prem Rawat renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, making his teachings independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles.[3] The DLM in the United States changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change.[4] Elan Vital became the name shared by several organizations supporting the work of Rawat. Independent Elan Vital organizations in several countries engaged in raising funds, organising speaking engagements by Rawat and in some cases broadcast his public addresses. Elan Vital no longer connected to its originally Hindu or Sikh religious background. Elan Vital, Inc. in the U.S. is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It has been labelled a "church" in reference to its tax status.[5] Its 2005 articles of incorporation described its purpose as performing "religious, charitable and educational activities". The Elan Vital website states that Elan Vital ceased operations in 2010, and has been succeeded by new entities such as Words of Peace International, Inc.[6]
===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===
In 2001, Rawat founded The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF),[7] a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas.[8]
The Peace Education Programme (PEP), founded by TPRF, is a media-based educational programme that helps participants explore the possibility of personal peace, and to discover personal resources — tools for living such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope. The programme, not only successful in some educational institutions, had by 2012 also been adopted by 28 prisons in 10 countries including the United States, South Africa, India, Spain, Ireland and Australia. The voluntary based programme takes inmates onto a unique route of rehabilitation involving self-discovery, and hopes of a fulfilled life, within or without the prison walls.[9]
Re. Rainer's comments:
  • As you can see this allows to tell something more about the recent developments, the two older organizations already have their separate article (I borrowed from the intros of these articles for their respective descriptions above).
  • (for the Wikipedia technique used to write this section, see Wikipedia:Summary style — if you're interested in such technicalities)
  • Media section: not the topic of this talk page subsection
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ van Driel & Richardson (1988)
  2. ^ "Miami's startled elite wish the guru, in short, a pleasant stay", By Barry Bearak, Knight-Ridder Service, 30 July 1977. INDEPENDENT PRESS TELEGRAM (Long Beach, CA) A-11 "ACCORDING to Anctil and mission president Bill Patterson, they represent a church rather than a religion."
  3. ^ Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American Religions 7th edition. Thomson (2003) p.2328 ISBN 0-7876-6384-0
    "In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization to support his future role as teacher." [...] Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated and to make his presentation acceptable to all the various cultural settings in which followers live. He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles, and regularly addresses audiences in places as culturally diverse as India, Japan, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Slovenia, Mauritius and Venezuela, as well as North America, Europe and the South Pacific.
  4. ^ Colorado Secretary of State, Business Center.
  5. ^ GuideStar – American Express Search – ELAN VITAL INC
  6. ^ Elan Vital website
  7. ^ "About Prem Rawat" at the website of The Prem Rawat Foundation
  8. ^ "Charity report". BBB Wise Giving Alliance. Retrieved March 2007. 
  9. ^ Shanti Ayadurai. "Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison" in The Malaysian Times (29 October 2012)
My straightaway impression is (without looking at all the sources thoroughly, that can wait), your proposal is pleasantly informative and neutral. Where would you place it in the article? Perhaps in front of the Reception-section?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Above I said (second line under subsection title) "...new section under the teachings section", which is indeed the same as "...in front of the Reception-section" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have overlooked that. So we agree on that, too.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to mention the 'Food for People' program in the TPRF-paragraph, along with the Peace Education Program, as these two seem to constitute the organisation's crown jewels. There are presently three facilities, namely in India, Nepal and Ghana. Here are secondary sources I have found (of course there are a lot of more detailed primary sources, but I'm not sure if we can use them): http://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-prem-rawat-foundation-launches-food-people-dhading (Nepal and India) and http://www.goodnesstv.org/en/ (Ghana)--Rainer P. (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My biggest concern is that the sources for these proposed changes/additions are from self-published and primary sources only. That makes this proposal original research, imo. The Malaysian Times piece reads like a standard Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) press release with advertisements for Rawat and TPRF. The same goes for the "Relief Web" piece. The link to "Goodness TV" brings you to the main page with nothing about Rawat on it. A search of Prem Rawat on "Goodness TV" gives a list of TPRF-produced videos that are described in French. Where are the secondary sources for introducing these newer organizations and programs? I can't agree with creating a new section titled "Organizations" and expanding on TPRF's programs without secondary sources. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In WP:Primary sources it says: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. So in my understanding these sources, even if they are primary, do allow us to state that there are these organisations in a descriptive way, but no interpretations or judgements. It is not OR either, as any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge can confirm. So, as far as Francis's proposal is strictly descriptive, it is sufficiently covered by these sources. In case of doubt WP:RS-Noticeboard should be consulted.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Balancing fourth sentence of the intro[edit]

Copying part of a conversation above:

(The fourth sentence of the intro) needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.
Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Second sentence of lede[edit]

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


How about replacing

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge".[1]

by

Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge",[1] and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.[2]

References
  1. ^ a b Geaves, Ron (6 May 2004). "Elan Vital". In Christopher Hugh Partridge. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. Oxford University Press. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-19-522042-1. Retrieved 8 March 2013. 
  2. ^ Shanti Ayadurai. "Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison" in The Malaysian Times (29 October 2012)

(...)

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


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

I like it, too. That way there is an informational statement before criticism, the way it should be.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, went ahead with this one. Can I go ahead with the proposal in #New section on organizations too? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Brand Award in infobox?[edit]

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

Maybe it is enough to mention that he has been awarded with a multifarious variety of civic accolades, not highlighting a single one (except it some day were the Peace Noble Prize ...). No refs necessary, they are given in the article. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Analyzing what WP:primary sources says, we can even source it with http://www.premrawat.com/awards/.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing is not the problem. In my view this award is not significant enough for the infobox, so I definitely would like more input on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your point. I guess the sheer number of various accolades is notable. I suggest a sentence like: He has received numerous civic accolades (please correct style, if necessary), and source it like above?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't write such sentences in the infobox list of specific topics. Either the accolades are named, or not included (in the infobox, article content is a different matter). Really, need more input from other editors on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That is not satisfactory. What's the use of an infobox, if it can't really reflect the facts? I see that listing all awards might exceed the infobox format, but omitting them does not seem to be a good solution. Why not summarize and insert a link to the relevant text passages?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan Outlook interview[edit]

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

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

His followers, when they have reacted to such criticism, have tended to point to issues of perception[1][2][3] while Rawat himself has attributed it to ability to give peace[4][clarification needed] and his mistrust of the press.[5]

But wait... that was removed by Rainer P. [4]
If Rawat only riposts to criticism in a way that is picked up in reliable sources every four decades, I don't think we need more than one mentioning in the article, and I'd go for the one in the secondary source then, not the one in the primary source.
In general the subject of the article seems to devote precious little time to riposting to criticism, per WP:BALASPS we shouldn't give it excess weight in the article.
Note, Prem Rawat#Lifestyle currently contains the Rawat quote with which he replied to criticism in '73.
BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 [5], the original post read:

Reactions of his followers to such points of criticism, if any, tend to point to perception issues,[1][2][3] while Rawat asserted his ability to give peace[4] and his mistrust of the press.[5]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ a b Geaves (2006a), pp. 44-62.
  2. ^ a b "The Guru Who Minds His Mother", MALCOLM N. CARTER. Associated Press THE STARS AND STRIPES, 4 November 1973 Page A6
  3. ^ a b Foss & Larkin (1978)
  4. ^ a b San Francisco Examiner, 7/21/73, as quoted in "What's Behind the 15-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji?" Gail Winder and Carol Horowitz, The Realist 12/73
  5. ^ a b Der Spiegel - 8 October 1973

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

Please follow Wikipedia:Indentation in talk page discussions.
Please explain your use of "incoherent". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage. But it specifically means unintelligible due to a lack of cohesion, or sticking together. An incoherent argument may sound something like this. "I deserve to go to the dance because it is the second Tuesday of the month and my feet are a size ten." The reasons do not follow each other logically and to not even relate. It's an incoherent mess." (from: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/incoherent). E.g. to my mind it's incoherent not to keep a specific personal level of indentation in an ongoing discussion, as it makes it easier to identify who is posting. But I'll of course do my best for the quality of this article, so it won't get stuck in technical formalities.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 [6]" is what I posted above: "unintelligibility" not caused by incoherence, but by bad syntax. I never said I would go back to the bad syntax that led to this clarification request. As I said the actual Rawat quote (not the unintelligible summary of it) is still in the article (one time, no unintelligibility or incoherence involved) in Prem Rawat#Lifestyle, and as I said I would keep it in the article one time, so your question "why should we prefer ... an incoherent statement ...?" is without object, nobody suggests anything like that.
Regarding the rest of your previous questions: generally in Wikipedia secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), the rest of my reasons is WP:BALASPS. Note that I rewrote that policy section a few months ago in part for something that happened in connection to the Rawat article, in case Rainer P. apparently misunderstanding WP:BALASPS, see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section. So I invite you to please revisit that policy section (and the talk page section on why it changed), because I see the same type of misunderstanding reappearing in your questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh Francis, so complicated to say (or to obscure) a simple thing? As soon as I find the time and the mood to dig through your statement, I probably will. I am convinced though, you could simply say what you mean, without having me spend hours to find out if there is a point to it at all, or whether you just don't like it. I liked that RfC thing you kicked off recently, maybe we could shorten the process by applying that again for this matter. Like: Is it okay to use this quote ..., and so on. Maybe we can find agreement over the sentence in question.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
RainerP., is there a date on that video? I don't see a problem with your proposal, but it would be better if it had a date stamp on it. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a date on the video itself, but there is a parallel link to the program: http://web.pts.org.tw/macroview/taiwan_outlook/index.php?id=405 , that says June 13, 2014, 12:00 h.
Sylviecyn, do you think it is necessary to provide an additional footnote only for the exact date?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

TV-interviews[edit]

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

"extensive" is an interpretative qualifier, not allowed per WP:PRIMARY. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Further, the sentence you have asked permission for at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#YouTube-videos is: 'He gave some extensive interviews to TV-channels', significantly different from what is proposed here.
Further, you only *proposed* it there, currently without anyone commenting, so the contention "admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos')" is insincere to put it mildly, but the word should be "misleading". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's discuss the exact wording. I don't care about the 'extensive'. And I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Let's be constructive. Pick a wording!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lede[edit]

This edit [7] was a WP:BOLD attempt to correct several problems in the lede, some of which were highlighted during the recently closed RFC (honorifics, describing criticism before describing notability, etc.), and other issues related to simplifying a somewhat convoluted English grammar, for readability. The edit was reverted, so I leave it to you to address these issues on your own. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cwobeel! Thank you for your contribution, and please feel welcome to this discussion, that could really use some fresh blood.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, but I'll pass. It is clear that there is a measure of WP:OWN here, and the discussions are over-the-top confusing and long winded, with very little progress to show for. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not completely related to this, but still: some time ago I expanded auto-archive time lapse from 30 to 100 days (as many talk page sections were archived, then brought back for further discussion, resulting in messy archive pages when the sections were re-archived). 100 days was probably too long, too many finished discussions linger on here, leading unsurprisingly to the remark this page is getting "confusing". So now I put the time lapse to 60 days, but would agree to 45 days too. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly a step toward sanity. I have on several occasions tried and reverted the bot's archiving, but that was never sustainable. Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)