Talk:Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

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

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

Limiting external links to two - Compromise Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Known as...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aviation interests

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

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

As pointed out by Jayen recently ([4]), BLP's should not contain material that is based on primary sources and is not quoted thus in secondary sources. If I understood Jayen correctly that is a policy level rule. The patent material should be removed from the article, unless a secondary source mentions it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am rather disappointed that we now have the same version in the lede AGAIN that no one but Francis has said they like. [5] Jayen466 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who spent "considerable time working out"? This has been "the consensus version for months"? Rawat is not a "spiritual leader", it was added by Cla68 a week ago and promptly removed.[7] Here's what WP:CS says "Sources should be cited when adding material to the biography of a living person". Do you see a cite for Cla68's addition? I don't. And here's what WP:RS says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page". It's out.Momento (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balyogeshwar RfC

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

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

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

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

Yogeshwar (> yoga + ishwara) on its own means "Lord of (Mystical) Union" and is one of the names of Krishna: [8].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have more than one source that shows he was using "Sant Ji" well after the death of his father, long after he'd adopted "GMJ" and even after he'd been declared an adult.[9][10]   Will Beback  talk  06:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this undated (and unsigned) review of a 1993 book appears to refer to the subject as "Balyogeshwar Guruji".[11] Balyogeshwar may be more common in India, perhaps because Maharaji is used to refer to many different people.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The most recent source using it is from ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related thread (previously started in other section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balyogeshwar and the principle of least surprise

In view of the fact that Balyogeshwar seems to be in use as a given name, and that there has been at least one other "enlightened child" called Balyogeshwar [12], we could make Balyogeshwar a disambiguation page and state there that its most prominent use is as a name applied to Prem Rawat; that would obviate the need to include Balyogeshwar in the lead here and might be a workable compromise. We could then mention the name in the Childhood section instead. Some more background:* The most recent Western source using Balyogeshwar that I could find is a German one from 2006. This uses Balyogeshwar by itself, without mentioning any of the other names: [13].

• There are 78 references to Balyogeshwar in google books, and they all seem to be about Rawat: [14] (Just as an aside, not all sources are agreed he is called Prem Pal Singh Rawat. A number of them assert his name is Pratap Singh Prawat.)*Page views for the Balyogeshwar page, however, are fairly minor, struggling in some months to break into double figures: [15]. Jayen466 09:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the "other" Balyogeshwar notable enough for an article? Even aside from the redirect, the fact that several sources refer to the subject almost exclusively as "Balyogeshwar" seems like a good enough reason to include the name/title in the lead. One of the books in your Google search, Ramparts, says, "Like other Indians, he was given two names at birth: Pratap Singh Rawat, and Balyogeshwar." [16]   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC):::(1) No, I don't think so. (2) One could certainly see it that way. (3) Yes, I saw that, but am more inclined to trust the Encyclopedia Indica on that one. (But then again, who knows ...) Jayen466 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Quite a few sources, especially from the early 1970s, list that as his name. Since they had little opportunity to discover that on their own, I'd guess that it was told to them by DLM press agents. For example::::::*He is called Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj—hardly a name likely to become a household word. A little over a year ago only a handful of people outside India knew who he was. But last fortnight, when Guru Maharaj Ji (as he is short-titled) flew from the U.S. to New Delhi to celebrate a three-day festival in honor of his late guru father, he was accompanied by seven jumbo jets filled with new followers from the West.

• • "Junior Guru", TIME Monday, Nov. 27, 1972
• Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudey Shri Sant Ji Maharaj - the 15-year-old so-called boy god arrived in Britain yesterday to a welcome from 800 devotees who thronged London Airport...For his part, the luxury-loving holy boy, Guru Maharaj Ji, for short, hopes to double his British following of 6,000 - doubtless boosting the amount they pay for the privilege of seeing the Divine Light.
  • "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life", Richard Herd, Daily Mail, July 12, 1973
• The Guru's full name, with title, is Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji. According to the records of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, he was born Prem Pal Singh Rawat in Hardwar, India on December 10, 1957.
  • CURRENT BIOGRAPHY 1974

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source

New to me, anyway. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, published by Greenwood Press. See here: [[18]]. Ron Geaves appears to have authored the Prem Rawat article, but I suggest that the source here is the publisher. Greenwood Press has an impeccable reputation for scholarly publishing, as they explain here: [[19]]. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-regarded and quite recent (2006) source: [20]. I think we should draw on it. Jayen466 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rawat birth year

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

==Italian newspaper coverage==[[21]] Comments? Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)::So what?  Are you going to add into this article every little irrevelant tidbit that's published in the world? Let us know when Rawat gives a bona fide interview with any major journalists, like someone that he hasn't hand-picked first, such as Burt Wolfe's interview.  Now that'll be news.  :)  Sylviecyn (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)  :In bad machine translation it appears that he helped open a local Almond Tree Festival. Is there some significance to this?   Will Beback  talk  16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC):::I don't know, I don't do bad machine translation. Maybe someone has enough Italiano to tell us what it is about. I think an absolute flood of "little irrelevant tidbits", which is what we are seeing, maybe attains some significance, and this should be acknowledged in the article. Any interviewer who responds positively to him could be accused of being hand-picked. Rumiton (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)The article is mostly about local festivities. The headline is happy to mention Prem Rawat, perhaps this time it was the authorities who invited him who were honored rather than Prem Rawat himself, who was present in the opening of the local yearly festivities. There is only one sentence about Prem the "pacifist", (bad word choice of the journalist, a common case), who was present in the opening of the festivities, the mayor of the town Marco Zambuto introduced Prem Rawat, and the article quotes Prem saying:

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

That is all, the rest is about the local festivities. It could be included, but it is one more of at least hundreds of speeches, in 40 years they are probably more than one thousand. I think someone might find evidence that Prem spoke at the US  House of Representatives in the Bicentennial speeches. I have seen a few seconds of the start of his speech in a video, so the data must be somewhere. He is one of the youngest persons that have spoken there, and might be the youngest in 200 years. The bio still has a lot of trivia interesting only to a few "specialists on Prem", but uninteresting for most people, while important facts and specially his teachings, the most important thing, are absent or almost. The article is still far from a normal bio of other similarly respected people. I have read that at a time there were more negative comments in Prem's biography than in Hitler's. Even if that is exagerated and it was only half or one third it would still be absurd. What has been happening here?--Pedrero (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC):We devote another entire article to his teachings, which is the reason that they are only barely mentioned in this article. Where did you read the assertion about this article versus Hitler's?   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)