Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Steve Jobs Biography: not really a contradiction.
→‎Steve Jobs Biography: seems that a far more direct connection made by a reliable source would be needed
Line 334: Line 334:
The [[Neem Karoli Baba]] article refers to Jobs as one of ''that'' "Maharaj-ji"'s followers. I would thus quite hesitate to attach it here. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The [[Neem Karoli Baba]] article refers to Jobs as one of ''that'' "Maharaj-ji"'s followers. I would thus quite hesitate to attach it here. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:I think if you read it carefully, the article says Jobs travelled to India to meet Neem Baba, but Baba died before he got there. Then he apparently mentions spending time with Prem Rawat some years later. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:I think if you read it carefully, the article says Jobs travelled to India to meet Neem Baba, but Baba died before he got there. Then he apparently mentions spending time with Prem Rawat some years later. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::1. We have Jobs already mentioned in an article on a ''different'' "Maharaj-Ji" and we have no connection with Jobs as a follower of Prem Rawat. 2. [[WP:BLP]] is clear that a reliable source ''directly'' connecting Jobs to Prem Rawat would be needed. Since the reference is to "Maharaj-Ji" and the other one ''is'' directly connected, it is a long stretch to connect ''both'' to Jobs. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:13, 31 October 2011

Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
 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.

Subpages




THANKS for your contributions

Hello cyberfriends-cyberbrothers of this discussion page. It is nice to read the still interesting debates on almost the same things as two years ago when I tried to help but did not. It is also nice to see Rumiton is still practically the only one with some humor, most seem to lack humor or angry for whatever reason. It is still funny to see that valid sources may be anything published by anyone except in Prem Rawat’s websites or by his followers. Only outsiders know best.

For Mr./Mrs 69.245.65.89 (I hope it is not your number in jail), and others who may have the same wish to understand the subject and the subject’s subject, it might help to read Vivekananda, Sivananda, Yogananda and others who said the same Prem Raw is saying, though with less humor and many more intellectual, sophisticated words, and lots and lots of spiritual technology, which I and many more love, as we westerners love technology.

There is nothing wrong with Prem Rawat saying he is God, if he ever said it, I never heard him say exactly that, though followers may say it, like followers of all respected yogis always said. There is nothing wrong, because he also says he is a human being like us, so we are also God, but we have forgotten it, and Knowlegde is the way to remember it. May sound funny but it is no joke, it is the same thing dozens of respected yogis have said for thousands of years.

It is very simple, we were first a sleeping mineral, then we started waking up being a plant, continued waking up as an animal, and as humans we think we have completely woken up. Well, no, we are still waking up, and will be fully awake when we reach the same level as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Babaji, Vivekandanda, Sivananda, Sri Yukteswar, Yogananda, Shri Hans, his son, etc. (too long list). Good luck with your debates, what we say is not so important as how we say it, and last not least, have a good time, because after all, this discussion page is going to survive us all, not only me, 67, but probably everybody.

By the way, I regret to tell you that I disagree with everybody, including myself, and as I had a great time reading you all, I wish to thank you with a joke by Prem Rawat which I like very much, it is not connected with any of us, or perhaps with all, who knows. An intellectual is a person that when speaking with someone else is thinking all the time that he is right and the other guy is not. And even when the other guy says the same, still thinks he is right and the other guy is not. Have a nice day. --PremieLover (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think there should be a wikilink for Sat Pal inside the article where his name apears the first time, since he has his own article, he deserves a wikilink from here to there. Surdas (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree, and assuming it will be considered uncontroversial, just added the link. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whhaaaat?! An article change that's incredibly minor, and yet, still somehow doesn't require 3 weeks of screaming, yelling, and conflicting sources, that ends up in an editwar and gets a user (let's call that hypothetical user "Keepsake") banned?! This doesn't seem right, I feel cheated. :) -- Maelefique (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first appearance, in the 1960s section, was already linked. But there's no harm done by adding a second link.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah heck, it was already linked. Just goes to show, doesn't it? It's always better to discuss. Yes, I've learned my lesson now. You will see no more of this rash, impulsive kind of behavior from me. Nosirs. Rumiton (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knew we should have argued about it first... mumble, mumble... -- Maelefique (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's so easy to overlook, should we give his full name at the first use?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! How things can change for the better after the soothing effect of time. I'm genuinely touched by all the goodwill here. This is even more reason for me to go back to sleep again - zzzzz Savlonn (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible! A minor change to one sentence that didn't require mediation! Ronk01 talk 21:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if you read the above carefully you will see that the change turned out to be a mistake. I think we have all agreed now that we will return to our previous policy of disputing everything to the max without trying to apply discrimination or common sense. It is a more even-handed approach. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (Perish the thought that the above might be taken seriously.) Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought we were finally on the same page, you had to go and add one more sentence... :) -- Maelefique (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EU Parliament

I would like to add a sentence at the foot of the 1983-2000s-section about Rawat's speech at the European Parliament on June 29, 2010. Something like: Invited by Vice-President Gianni Pittella, Rawat spoke on the subject of peace at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, in 2010.[1] Objections/suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have any objection to that, however, I would also like to amend the first sentence in the second to last paragraph in the same section to something like the following:
Elan Vital, (who closed it's doors in 2010, saying that "New entities have been formed with a similar purpose. Words of Peace International, Inc. (WOPI) is a US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose purpose accords with that of EVI)" [2], stated that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[1]
I think that sentence can still be cleaned up a lot, but probably has all the context we need in it. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good edit, Rainer. Maybe the evolutions of Elan Vital would be better referred to in the Elan Vital article? I see there is nothing there about any "new entities." Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, as it occurred quite recently, the month might be added to the European Parliament speech. Rumiton (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Basilicata Region News piece looks like a press release, not a news article written by a journalist. Youtube links don't help. Let's trim this down a bit. We can leave off the invitation, since that's pretty much peripheral. When we get down to 'brass tacks", this is just a speech which hasn't been reported in any independent sources. We can mention it, but it should be brief.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that YouTube isn't worth mentioning, but press release or not, the Basilicata Region News article confirms that the conference took place and that the EU VP was the invitee. Any newspaper must have checked that. I also think the status of the people who invited him to these events is crucial to understanding their significance. If the names of the inviters and presenters are left out we create the probably libellous implication that he just rented a room for himself in these buildings. That one needs to be put to rest permanently. Rumiton (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important who invited him? Is it mentioned in any independent reporting of the event? I can't even find any mention of this in regular newspapers.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

the first link doesn't work, the second is a blog, the other ones are press releases, i don't see an independent article.By the way, the video states it is a "Historical Event". This looks so blown up, it is emberassing. Why not follow Will's advice and leave it as a minor edit. That's good enough. Surdas (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[E/C] I don't speak Italian, but according to Google this article (or whatever it is) says that Rawat was the host and rapporteur ("Ospite e relatore della conferenza").[6] It also says that Rawat was appointed Ambassador of Peace to a small province in Souther Italy, Basilicata, during a concert in 2009. What's that about?
Rawat's notability is as a guru from 1970 to the mid-1980s. He is not notable for his activities in the past 25 years, though we can include activities reported in secondary sources or those which aren't self-serving. This is in the latter category, we we should rely on secondary sources exclusively. Two of the links in the previous message appears to just be listings of which rooms are in use for which events.[7][8] Another appears to just be a news portal that links to articles posted elsewhere.[9]   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone else having trouble with the first link? It is from a group called the Socialists and Democrats Alliance for Progress, European Parliament, and is a diary of events on 29 June. Under the heading of "Peace" they write: On the initiative of Gianni Pittella, Conference on "words of peace for Europe." Prem Rawat, 16.45 hours room JAN4Q2.
The second link is a blog. Sorry.
The third is another parliamentary diary.
The 4th is the AISE, the Agenzia Internazionale stampa estero which translates as “International Press Agency Abroad.” This is no press release, they have clearly investigated the subject independently, though many other news sources just copied their words.
Translation: Basilicata once again leads the peace process. In the prestigious setting of the European Parliament in Brussels, the first Vice President of the European Parliament, Hon Gianni Pittella, hosted a major European Conference on the theme of peace: "Words of Peace for Europe."
Guest and Rapporteur of the Conference, Prem Rawat, authoritative voice in favour of peace which resulted in his speeches and reflections all over the world, was appointed Ambassador of Peace of Basilicata last July 3, 2009 by President Vito De Filippo, during a conference held at the musical auditorium Gesualdo.
The Conference also saw the presence of Pavel Borodin, State Secretary of Belarus and Russia Union, engaged in giving assistance to orphaned children, as well as a delegation of representatives of associations of Basilicata including "Paths" chaired by Shkodra.
Gianni Pittella stated that globalisation must not be understood only as an economic phenomenon, but as an affirmation of peace. "We must overcome the differences that exist between different countries and come to an international system characterized by unity of purpose, quite different from what has been happening."
"La Basilicata, therefore, which is the land of ancient traditions of civilisation, has the ideal conditions to promote the theme of peace. Institutions at all levels and all citizens can have a decisive role in promoting, share and make concrete this commitment and make our region a true "laboratory for peace".
"Prem Rawat" in his tireless continuous travel around the world to speak of peace, continues to carry out the mission of testimonial of a small region often forgotten, that can become an example in front of the world simply encouraging people to pay attention to the issue of peace."
Rapporteur (derived from French) is used in international and European legal and political contexts to refer to a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation. (In this case, apparently peace.)
It was a conference, Will, not a concert. It was just apparently held in a musical auditorium. I don't know what the title signifies, but will try to find out. And if you had been invited by the Vice President of the European Union to address a conference in the European Parliament, would you consider it "self serving" to say so? Seems to me it's just a fact, but an important one.
5. See also [10] though it is largely a repeat of the International Press Agency article. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the better translation. If it's favorable, then it's self-serving. Doing a Google search on "JAN4Q2", an odd name for a room, we can see that events are held there every day. Conferences, debates, meetings, etc. People speak in that room every day. But I'll be this is the only article in all of Wikipedia that includes such an appearance. Note the time of Rawat's speech: 16.45. Who else spoke at this conference? Was he the only speaker? Was this "conference" really an end-of-day speech by Rawat? Watching the video, one can't help noticing the other men on the dais talking to each other while Rawat gave his speech. They did not seem to treat the appearance as a solemn and important event. Again, I think we should give this minimal space.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make me smile sometimes Will. According to Yourdictionary.com: Self serving describes a person or action done only for one's own benefit, sometimes at the expense of others. An example of self-serving is a lie told to make yourself look better. So self serving is a kind of lie. This is not a lie, it is a sourced fact. The subject was invited to speak at this conference on peace by the VP of the EU, and a room was made available. Other speakers covered subjects such as globalisation and orphaned children. The room itself, and any other purposes it may have, bear no significance. The time of the speech bears no significance. The people talking on stage that you couldn't help noticing are the VP himself, whose English is poor, listening to his translator bringing Prem Rawat's words into Italian for him. They were not showing disrespect for Prem Rawat...exactly the opposite. But all this does not matter. Even if your observations were correct and mine were wrong, neither of our opinions are relevant. We just need to present the views of the source (above). Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist things beyond their meanings. A lie can be self serving, but not all self-serving remarks are lies. For Wikipedia purposes, I believe the term is meant to cover statements of fact that are favorable and exceptional. Saying one has a B.A. in world history is not self serving, while saying one has been honored by the EU is self-serving. When you refer to "the source (above)", which source are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the AISE, but the information they convey is echoed in the other refs I provided. Your understanding of "self-serving" is interesting. "Statements of fact that are favorable and exceptional"? So if it is a fact that a subject has been exceptionally favored by many people and organisations, Wikipedia should ignore it? I think you would have some difficulties defending this opinion. Rumiton (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statements about Rawat that are only reported in press releases and Rawat-related websites should be treated with great care, if included at all. I've changed the source to the AISE press release, and trimmed the lengthy description of the invitation.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information we are talking about is not in any way a "press release", it is a report on the conference by one of the AISE reporters. You did not have a consensus to remove it from the article. I have restored it. Rumiton (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you restore the sourcing to Rawat websites? Do you think the AISE is less reliable than they are?   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't about open or closed minds, it's about writing a well-sourced article. Words of Peace Global Foundation (is there even a reliable source that describes WOPG as Prem Rawat's new support organization??), The Prem Rawat Foundation, and associated press releases and videos that link to the foundations absolutely cannot be considered reliable sources for purposes of this article. If a legitimate press source or book excerpt (not published by Rawat's organizations) can be presented as a source, then fine, leave it in. Otherwise, the paragraph must be removed now. Maybe we need some mediation on this?  :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the better source which I deleted accidentally. Rumiton (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that the AISE article is a report by one of their reporters. Yet the article is unsigned. Do you know something that we don't?   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is signed aise. Is there a problem with the word "reporter"? If we click on the tab above we read:
Aise produces news, services and articles which have as their first reference category "Italians in the world" and refer to everything that may directly or indirectly affect them as citizens, workers, entrepreneurs, professionals residing abroad.
IT'S (A) WORKING TOOL FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING FOR, WITH OR ABOUT ITALIANS IN THE WORLD. AISE NEWS INFORMS AND CIRCULATES, WITH ITS OWN DATA BANK DOCUMENTS IN REAL TIME.
So the article was produced by their writers (journalists, reporters, researchers or whatever.) They may well have gleaned some of their data from primary sources (perhaps the Italian version of WoPG and the EU event logs) but that doesn't matter. All Wiki-usable information comes from primary material, if we trace it back far enough. When a reputable secondary source picks up the info, analyses it and turns it into their own article it becomes usable for Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think much of Agenzia Internazionale Stampa Estero; the organisation has no entry and no citations in the Italian Wikipedia, and in fact only has a single citation in all Wikipedias combined, the one in this article: [11]. If nothing this organisation has ever reported is considered due for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is hard to argue on that basis that this should be the first such item. However, there is another source: [12] (clicking on this link offers two tabs, one for the article and one for printing it), from the news section of basilicatanet.eu, an Italian government website. What that article mentions – and I feel is notable – is that Rawat has been declared Ambassador of Peace by/for the Basilicata region of Italy. There are a number of references to him in this capacity on the Basilicata regional website: [13], as well as a couple of press reports [14]. (It should be noted that Pittella is himself from Potenza, the capital of Basilicata.) I would drop the sentence "In 2008, the Italian newspaper La Sicilia referred to Rawat as a "messenger of peace".[101]", and instead add something like the following: In 2009, Rawat was made Ambassador of Peace for the Basilicata region of Italy. I'd drop the sentence about the conference, as his participation there really isn't notable enough. --JN466 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point and have no problem with adding the basilicanet award ref. On the other hand, there is enough evidence from a number of sources that the conference invitation was extended by the EU VP, and even if the conference itself is of limited significance, the status of the inviter is a counterargument to the idea that the subject's notability expired around 1980. Given the deliberate media-shyness of the subject, a collection of fairly small pieces of evidence like this may be all we will get. Regarding the reputability of the AISE, I don't feel that absence of mention in the Italian (or any) Wikipedia should be taken as significant. I don't know how developed the Italian WP is. But Google gives 49,000 hits, covering a wide variety of topics, from the activities of Pope Benedict to Italian parliamentary reports. It seems to be a substantial and well-used source of information on Italian-related topics. Rumiton (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective or what?

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

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

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

Apart from the inherently non-scientific and non-provable nature of human feelings, I think what you suggest would just be poor grammar; the words "claim" and "teaching" cover much the same territory. They are things that Prem Rawat believes to be true and that he wants others to accept. If both words were used it would be an over-emphasis which could be seen as POV. I can see no suggestion in this wording that Wikipedia accepts his teachings to be the truth. Rumiton (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which sources we used for these assertions, which are both in the intro and in the body. I've put in some citation requests. Hopefully the sources can resolve this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the editor's point was that he may not actually teach this, but rather with the current wording which he felt lent Wikipedia weight to PR's concept. The statement itself seems to me a fairly self-evident description of his teaching priorities. According to TPRF, which he founded, His message is simple yet profound. He explains, “In the heart of every human being is also a want. A wish to be content, a wish to be in peace. Peace is not absence of war. Peace is a fundamental human need that needs to be felt from within. It is from the hearts of human beings that peace can be created. We may look different, we may speak differently, but we have the same fundamental needs.” What we have seems an accurate paraphrase. Rumiton (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to this, I just inserted a "please look at the archives first" banner. Rumiton (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we've discussed every setnece of this article exhaustively. Unfortunately, we weren't as careful about citing every sentence. For important assertions like th nature of the subject's core teachings, we should do better than rely on an unsigned webpage hosted by a group with a tenuous connection to the subject. Surely some scholars who aren't affiliated with him has summarized his teachings.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure every sentence needs to be cited, many of them are pretty unremarkable, like this one. As I said, the question raised was not whether the statement was incorrect or adequately sourced, but whether the phrasing was sufficiently neutral. I don't think we should call TPRF a "group". They are a registered and growing charitable organisation, and their connection with Prem Rawat is anything but "tenuous." He was their founder and they were set up partly to speak on his behalf. I agree that contentious issues may need outside treatment, but this statement is such a simple description of his "philosophy" that I cannot see any problem with it as it stands, nor of using TPRF to source it. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's incredibly misleading is that all reference to his teachings in the article is the current wishy-washy 'peace' spin. ie. only the meditation side is hinted at (and then barely). For many years Rawat himself repeatedly defined his core teachings as having 3 essential practices for a premie after they'd 'received knowledge'. These were: '1) Satsang 2) Service and 3) Meditation. He said that the whole package would fail (not work) with any one of these missing. He compared it to a three-legged stool in this respect. He also added a forth all important obligation 'Darshan' (to be in the presence of the living master) which ritually involved thousands of his followers lining up to kiss his feet. A practice that continues to this day. The formal vows (that 'aspirants' had to make as a part of their initiation ceremony) included promising to keep in touch with Rawat personally through 'Darshan' whenever possible. I searched the article and found not one reference to 'satsang' and I bet the other key things are missing too. Is it not utterly misleading for the article to omit these very essential and well-known pillars of his teachings, whilst inserting the current much more insipid toned-down promise of 'inner peace' which is just the initial bait Rawat and his followers use to lure people in? The meditational techniques themselves are a sworn secret of course (and this is covered in the article) however it is astonishing that followers have managed to successfully omit so much of the key, well-known core teachings. They are most certainly easily referenced by scholars. I seem to recall the prior discussions about this, and the followers and sympathisers managed to wriggle out of being more honest by arguing (when it suited) for 'brevity'. PatW (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your indignation which I consider fabricated and unjustified, the problem is that no reputable source has taken an interest in the requirement for selfless service (such as the work done by TPRF) or "satsang", (which is staying in touch with Prem Rawat by watching videos and attending live events when possible.) I would like to see these aspects covered also, but without a secondary source to tell us about them we are stuck with paraphrasing (to avoid copyright violation) the material that TPRF supplies. Would that be acceptable to editors here? Or do you know of secondary sources that cover these issues? Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point that the historic teachings are omitted. Why should the article just describe the new terminology? Of course I can easily provide sources that describe his teachings as being the things I listed. As a matter of fact I don't particularly object to the lede summary sentence but I do feel that the omission of the things I mentioned elsewhere is glaring.PatW (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide them? Then please do. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves me correctly, there are several high quality sources which say that Knowledge, along with "satsang, service, and meditation" was Rawat's main teaching. Now it's possible that a "core" teaching underlays those perhaps "external" teachings, but I don't recall anyone describing that arrangement. Again, it all comes down to using the best sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[15], [16] --JN466 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those Jayen. I notice service and satsang are referred to in the Divine Light Mission article. Perhaps that is where they better belong. Rumiton (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous Rumiton. Do you think for a moment that Rawat didn't teach Satsang, Service and Meditation? It's sickening to see you desperately flailing to basically twist the truth about Rawat's past here. Your spin just reflects the current organisation's desire to dissociate Rawat from a past that is deemed embarassing. The lie is the suggestion that Rawat did not himself for years continue exactly the same Indian style teachings that his father did before him. JN, as a proclaimed neutral party here, I hope you can see that Rumiton, like Jossi Fresco before him is just trying to continue the same whitewashing campaign by removing any reference to Indian trappings away to other articles. You do realise how incredibly offensive it is to former followers (who were hurt by the cult and want the truth known) to see supporters of Rawat coming here to try to diminish Rawat's reponsibility for his part in continuing to impose a very Hinduistic form of religion on people, that involved a lot of guilt-tripping, severing people's family connnections by demanding 'Surrender' and an 'ashram-style renunciate commitment (that included people donating all their money to Rawat).PatW (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add..if you remove my comments again from here Rumiton because you can't stomach my 'indignant' revulsion to your designs, I shall report your behaviour at the highest level.PatW (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indignation is fine, though endless and predictable torrents of it make for tedious reading. Personal attack on any living person is not fine. Feel free to check this with those at the "highest level", I am sure they will concur. The other problem with indignation is that it stops the indignator from listening to the indignatee (in this case, me.) I am not only agreeing with you that selfless service, satsang and meditation were the pillars of Prem Rawat's knowledge, I am saying that in 2011, they still are. Only the terminology has changed (and that only slightly.) In the next 6 months, hopefully, a new Key (Key 7) is going to be produced that re-emphasises this. Whether a respected source notices and writes it up, or whether we have to depend on TPRF or other self-published sources, is the dilemma we will continue to face. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Maybe I'm being a bit over-jumpy for which I must apologise - your suggestion that service and satsang 'better belong' in the DLM article just so reminded me of that whole unpleasant episode that was really only resolved when the matter came to the attention of the higher echelons of WP - even involving Jimmy Wales at some point. My initial reaction was, I confess, one of alarm- especially as I could never devote so much time here now. Anyway it seems to me that something uncannily akin to what you just wrote would actually be an extremely useful addition to this article. visa-vi Service, satsang, meditation and darshan have always been the core teachings of Prem Rawat's knowledge and remain so in 2011. Only the terminology has changed slightly. Do other's agree that this sort of factual approach might solve the 'over-subjective' problem that Revera highlighted? In response to Will B. I don't think there is a further 'core' essence to PR's teaching other than perhaps the idea of inner peace as in the book title 'Peace is Possible'. However essentially this is just a mission statement or slogan and, as Revera pointed out, it sheds no light in isolation, on how exactly what Rawat's teachings are. PatW (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse such a statement, if it can be sourced sensibly. And "peace" was always synonym with "inner peace", as there can be no other in the view of Knowledge.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we might have a problem with those sources. I am too busy with business right now to do it justice, but one of the most respected and certainly the most recent source, the sociologist Stephen J. Hunt, claims that the "major focus" of Maharaji is on the experience of "stillness, peace and contentment within the individual" and defines Knowledge as "the techniques to obtain them." Maybe we can find a way to refer to selfless service and satsang that doesn't contradict this. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC) The latter ref above also refers to Service, Satsang and Darshan as the "tenets of the DLM", which might further complicate things for us. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that Stephen J. Hunt has completely confirmed what I said. He's talking about the Knowledge techniques, Satsang, Service and Darshan. Where's the problem? Unless you find a source that elaborates how the current terminology differs then surely it'd be quite appropriate to insert this info practically verbatim. Besides this article shouldn't just describe Rawat's present choice of words; readers should equally be informed of the terminology he used for most of his life. BTW your choice of words 'Selfless Service' is misleading and weasely. Rawat was absolutely clear about his definition of service and explained in no uncertain terms that he meant service to HIM through the channels he set up. Selfless service to anything else was not going to help you in your path of Knowledge. There was a DLM publication which published a satsang of his actually called 'The Definition of Service' where he said this. PatW (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, Pat. Still, selfless service is something essential that the master demands on the path of Knowledge. Try to blend your ego into his service, and you'll see why. The rest of the world is not so finicky at that, as long as you do what you're told. The world will not teach you selflessness, it has no reason to and it doesn't really care. Selfless service can only come from love. No good to do selfless service, when you hate everybody.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that Rawats definition of service was that it had to include an element of service to him. EG. He now considers giving to charities that he has set up as service. Correct? Would giving to other charities count equally as service in the path of Rawat's Knowledge? I don't think so. That was certainly the distinction he was driving at in the speech I referred to above. Service had to be through the channels he set up and, contrary to what you say, it was nice but not essential to be feeling 'egoless or loving'. These qualities would come through the practice of Service (strictly via his organisation or to him directly) in tandem with Satsang, Meditation and Darshan whenever possible. That was the formula. Service, by his definition, was essentially NOT a state of mind (this is apparently a new emphasis) it was a clearly defined path of action. In fact it was taught that it WAS indeed good to do service when you 'hated everybody' because it would get you out of that frame of mind! Of course this recipe for learning selflessness also works fine outside the masters sphere of influence. And of course there are plenty of people in the world who demonstrate selfless care who know nothing of Rawat. Here's a question- Does 'Service' (as meant by Rawat as a part of his formula for Knowledge) have to involve an actual connection to him or his organisation, or can it be any action done in a particular state of consciousness? If the latter, what should that state of consciousness be?PatW (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is any value in trying to continue with this, we have gone this road so many times before. Apparently in England and the US, the World Welfare Association, which Prem Rawat started internationally in 1972, never became well known. In Australia it was large, and a popular way for people to plug in. One of my first service experiences was washing dishes for Meals on Wheels, and that was entirely in fulfillment of Prem Rawats's advice to do something to help feed the hungry, though I do recall that DLM officials were openly contemptuous of people using their energies in this way. Bob Mishler was lecturing on the great opportunity we all had to "join the DLM on a career level", and with hindsight I have no doubt that they all saw charity work as a diversion of energy from the structure they were trying to build. Now TPRF is continuing this challenge; it is not a whole new thing. I have no idea what you mean by "a particular state of consciousness", unless it just means having a desire to do something worthwhile in your life. During the recent Queensland floods, a group of us worked pretty much day and night to save people's belongings and wash their homes down afterwards. I don't think anyone saw this as anything but "service", though no one mentioned the word. And of course, many hundreds of folk who probably never heard of Maharaji turned out to help, too. It was a heartwarming experience for all concerned, pretty much the opposite of what I am experiencing right now, trying to pick through the dirt that Englishmen apparently created for themselves some 40 years ago. If you can't supply good 2ndary sources that will help this article, then I won't engage with you again. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by 'Some Englishmen' you're having a dig at me. 40 years ago I was 14 and never heard of Prem Rawat. I'm happy with the Hunt references as 2ndary sources. Shall we add a little sentence using those?PatW (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "some Englishmen", please quote me more carefully. I said "Englishmen" and it was nothing to do with you. I was writing about the way Western people in 1971 bent what Prem Rawat was saying into their own cultural (or counter-cultural) shape, and if The World Welfare Association was never even incorporated in the UK, as you suggest it wasn't, then that puts them high on my personal list of benders. Hunt's writings are still problematic, in that they don't specifically talk about Service, Satsang and Meditation, as we would like them to. Stephen J. Hunt describes Rawat's major focus as being on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures and the process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full. They claim that Rawat's authority comes from the nature of his teachings and their benefit to the individual. The Teachings of Prem Rawat article already gives most of this quote, though I am happy to add some more to this page as well if editors see that as fitting. Rumiton (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

We obviously can't report unverifiable, unsourced rumors. The linked website has little more than a one-line statement of purpose and an address. If this appears in reliable secondary sources then we could potentially include it somewhere, but that link isn't enough. At most we could say that the Privan Foundation exists, but I wouldn't suggesting doing even that without a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK Will. Obviously the Priyan Foundation and it's declared purpose: "Purpose for which this foundation is established is to facilitate in all parts of the world the education of the public in the understanding and realization of human potential based on the knowledge, principles and message of peace expounded by Prem Pal Singh Rawat." would become relevant to this article should anyone here find a proper source.PatW (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of it, but I did hear that this year TPRF was going to become a purely charitable organisation, with dissemination of his message now going to WOPG. Maybe this new organisation is an offshoot of that process. I doubt if it will be considered significant enough for sources to notice, but if it's a real thing and they do notice it, we can certainly mention it. Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Obviously, as Will said, any mention of incomes and budgets will need to be sourced to something way more substantial than your "apparently" and "rumoured to be". I am rather surprised that you are still trying stuff like that on, and I hope that you stop it. Rumiton (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You often share things that you have "heard" (as in your post immediately above) so should I not equally be at liberty to share what I have learned about Priyan, TPRF and WOPG from both public resources and my own friends within the organisation? You may never have heard of Priyan because the 'major donor' meetings are by invitation only. Priyan exists primarily to provide expenses for operating the Gulfstream aircraft. This is the largest expense for which money is raised for Prem Rawat's operations (as I was hoping to illustrate by sharing the comparative figures). The other fundraising activities are, as you say, WOPG which is a tax deductible charitable organisation and TPRF which is referred to as and the "bases initiative" (raising money to maintain PRs homes around the world). PatW (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011
One only has to Google "Prem Rawat Priyan" to come up with multiple sites where anyone can read about Priyan and the other orgs. The Eurocontrol Navigation Domain site lists Prem Rawat/Priyan Foundation as being the user of a Gulfstream 5 jet. PatW (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you are Googling, try "Food for People" and you might find this [17] site, which exposes the nonsense of your raising money to maintain PRs homes around the world. Rumiton (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - my mistake. See correction above. The 'Bases Initiative' is not TPRF PatW (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your apology is accepted, but in case anyone might be confused by the above, this [18] site gives a better view of what TPRF has been doing in wartorn and poverty stricken areas. This is a primary document, of course, but it also refers to an evaluation by Charity Navigator which has awarded TPRF a 4 star rating [19] for 3 years in a row. This award is given to acknowledge fiscal responsibity and overall effective performance, and is only granted to about 1 in 8 of the charities that apply for assessment. TPRF rated highest in their assessments of similar organisations. According to them, in the last available year, 2009, TPRF distributed $2,215,636 in global aid.[20] Rumiton (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Financial information is tricky to interpret. Anyway, it sounds like no one is proposing an edit here so I suggest we bring this discussion to a close.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please hear me out Will, I'm still thinking that we have just as much reason to link to the Priyan Foundation as we do to TPRF (in the '2000's section). The mention of TPRF is apparently justified by 2 linked webpages one of which is it's own site and the other a mention in some charity report. - Priyan is also mentioned in the official Eurocontrol Navigation Site in connection with Rawat and the Gulfstream Jet, as well has having it's own domain where it invites financial contribution to Rawat's work. I like to add a short sentence (which could be developed to include other orgs) as a part of this paragraph:
Elan Vital states that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[23] In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million.[99} Prem Rawat's mission is supported financially by a number of fundraising enterprises including Priyan (in the Netherlands).
Could we also add 'and WOPG' to that? I believe the word 'mission' is the most correct word since the Priyan website provides what can only be described as a clear 'Mission Statement' and of course this was how Rawat's work was described for years.PatW (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TPRF has been around for about ten years and has had a few mentions in the press (and has issued hundreds of press releases). Incidentally, I just searched again and found an obit from a few days ago for Kristin Ruth Carlander of Minneapolis and Las Vegas, who died childless at age 59 and was "passionate about her volunteer work with the Prem Rawat Foundation". She was the companion of Ira Woods, AKA Mahatma Gurupujanand.
Coincidentally, the US Patents and Trademarks office just released news yesterday that it had issued a trademark for "WORDS OF PEACE GLOBAL" to The Prem Rawat Foundation. The trademark covers prerecorded videos and brochures, and was first used commercially in April 2011, according to the filing. Obviously, that wasn't the first use in general, and they apparently made a first filing in 2008. The USPTO also ahs a trademark for WORDS OF PEACE issued to TPRF in 2009 covering broadcasts and prerecorded video. Guidestar has a U.S. federal tax form 990 for WORDS OF PEACE INTERNATIONAL from 2009. That year it received about $224,000 in donations and grants.
I can't find any secondary sources for Priyan. There are a couple of press releases which mention WOPG. So I'm not enthusiastic about mentioning them. If we did so, Patw's modest sentence would be the way to go. I'd alter it a little: Rawat's mission is supported financially by charitable foundations, including TPRF (US), Words of Peace (US), and Priyan (Netherlands). If we ever find a source saying that WOPG is replacing Elan Vital, or whatever, then we could add a line about that too.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Will. OK but my understanding is that Priyan is not a charitable organisation. I see no reason to make assumptions hence my choice of words.PatW (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that "Stichtig" is synonymous with Foundation (non-profit), which are all non-profits.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see what you mean. I read here [21] "Commercial activities are allowed if they are within the purpose of the foundation and are taxed." (Perhaps we could add Priyan to that list). Also it would be helpful to establish whether what I have read on critics sites (in bold) is verifiable -"WOPG (which does not offer tax deductible options) is like Priyan, registered in the Netherlands in terms which allow total obscurity of its accounts – though neither entity is accorded charitable status – oversight is even less stringent than in Switzerland which is perhaps why Elan Vital Foundation has fallen into redundancy." PatW (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Welcome. There are many reasons to limit the use of primary sources. I'm not going to list them all here or restate arguments which have been made many times across Wikipedia. For the definitive rule, see WP:PSTS. Another guideline to review is WP:SYNTH. But I will briefly touch on a few relevant points. First, it is often difficult with primary sources to know if one is reading about the same individual or subject. Is there only one "Prem Rawat" or "Maharaj Ji" in world history? I don't believe so. Second, it is too easy to make explicit or implicit conclusions from primary sources which they do not really support. For example, if we can't find evidence of the subject's current pilot's license does that necessarily mean it has expired? Or, if we're looking through the 990 tax forms and see that only $660,000 in expenditures are listed as global aid, does that mean the other $1.5 million went to something else? We just don't have enough information. From my experience, primary sources are best limited to providing illustrative quotations or details about issues which have been directly described in secondary sources.
I agree that this often leads articles which don't tell the whole story. We might have a secondary source which says a subject was sued while lacking a source describing the outcome of the suit. In some cases, for fairness, we omit the story entirely to avoid giving an incomplete picture that would leave an implication of its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better to have incomplete articles rather than unfair or misleading ones, but the main issue is that Wikipedia editors are not qualified researchers. The better a secondary source is, the more likely it is that they will avoid errors such as those you mention. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a problem with yet another of PatW's facts, this time concerning the charitable status of WOPG. According to this site, In 2008, WOPG was incorporated as an international charitable foundation, registered in the Netherlands. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - 1) I never stated this was a fact, I just referred to the FACT that critics sites have suggested that the charitable status of both Priyan and WOPG is obscure, so we might want to thoroughly check it. I know perfectly well that the WOPG itself says it's a charitable foundation. Yes, their adverts speak very highly of them. 2) I don't see why I or ANYBODY should be made to continuously feel (by the likes of you or other Rawat supporters) that we should tiptoe around the glaring fact that there is considerable criticism of Rawat and his activities on the internet and a lot of very unflattering information available. Information that you are clearly at pains to keep out of these discussions, but that anyone impartial would think is helpful. 3) I don't suppose any of us here would have known anything about 'Priyan' had I not learned of it's existence from reading the recent critics 'ex-premie forum' reports by several former major donors (one who personally gave $5 MILLION to Priyan (much to his regret). PatW (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can only report what we find in reliable published sources. Much of what is found only on the Internet, however true it may be, is excluded. We've been over this many times in the past, and it is not a good use of our time to rehash it over and over. If folks think there is a worthwhile angle on the subject which is not covered presently, then they'd be better served by getting some journalist or author interested enough to write about it.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the journalist or author would discover that a great deal of criticism is being made by a very small number of people, and that a very large number of pro-Rawat people posting on YouTube etc. are similarly being ignored. The important thing here is that by inserting unsourced contentious statements you are ignoring the fact that talk pages are public areas of Wikipedia and you are violating the standard talk page warning: This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I will do this if there is any repeat of this behaviour. Rumiton (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out. Nobody is posting any libelous material here. I suggest we close this thread, as it's producing more heat than light.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the record you have misinterpreted my words. I was by no means making libellous innuendo. The charitable status of WOPG and Priyan is obscure because they are in the Netherlands and it's very hard to research unless you speak Dutch. I will comment further if and when I have results that can help this article. If someone else want to add a mention to Priyan as per Will's suggestion that's fine. I would be happy for both organisations to be referred to as charities based on what we currently know from the sources we have. I see no harm in that.PatW (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear PatW. Let me give you my opinion on ex-premies websites, which you seem to believe. Many people had psychological problems before hearing about Prem Rawat, and thought he could be a free psychiatrist that would solve their problems. Prem Rawat has said that we should not think that Knowledge is a solution for our worldly problems (or our karma). So after these people learned this, they left and continued having their problems. We believe what we WANT to believe. The question is WHY we want to believe it.--PremieLover (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not offer opinions of anything that isn't directly related to this article. This is very unhelpful and divisive. Please don't post anything else like this in the future.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Will here, PremieLover. It is very easy to goad people, but it never leads to a good outcome. If you have good sources for information, please let us see them. Rumiton (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER EVENT FOR DEBATE

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

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

If you can find a secondary reference for this and many similar events, then I am sure we can refer to them. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interested editors can watch a slightly shortened video of this speech and introductions here. The subject appears to have, as usual, and true to his stated intentions, managed to avoid any mention of this event in the press, which makes it a bit hard for us Wikipedia editors, but watching this should at least lead some to question the claim that is sometimes made, that Prem Rawat's relevance ceased in about 1980. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, this may be an earlier occasion to the Freedom of City speech. But that only accentuates the significance of what the subject is doing. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7449944.html as logged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations --Ivoofcharteswidow (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So here our original research tells us that:
1. In 2007, the Prem Rawat Foundation made a considerable donation to charity in London.
2. On 31 May 2007, the British tabloid Evening Standard described Prem Rawat as a "cult leader" and said his involvement had "raised eyebrows." (The reputabilty of the Evening Standard, and of British tabloids in general, is questionable. According to its Wikipedia article: On 21 January 2009 Russian businessman and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and son Evgeny Lebedev, now the paper's chairman, agreed to purchase 75.1% of the paper for £1. In May 2009 the paper launched a series of poster ads, each of which prominently featured the word 'Sorry' in the paper's then-masthead font. These ads offered various apologies for past editorial approaches.)
3. On 13 Mar 2008, in honour of TPRF contributions, Prem Rawat was invited to be the key note speaker at an event called "Giving from the Heart" hosted by the Lord Mayor of the City of London at the Guildhall. The Lord Mayor was represented by the Sheriff of London, who introduced Prem Rawat to the audience of "aldermen and distinguished guests."
4. On 16 October 2011, at the Livery Hall, Prem Rawat was granted the Freedom of the City of London. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs Biography

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

Just use the audio book as a source by citing which mile marker or exit number you passed during the respective passages. ;)
"Maharaj Ji"/"Maharaji" isn't an exclusive honorific. It might be best to see it in print before adding it here.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The context should confirm that this was Prem Rawat, I don't think there were any other Maharajis active in America at that time. But in itself it seems rather trivial, made somewhat interesting by Jobs' recent death. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I have been too hasty. What does Jobs say about Prem Rawat? Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think if you read it carefully, the article says Jobs travelled to India to meet Neem Baba, but Baba died before he got there. Then he apparently mentions spending time with Prem Rawat some years later. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. We have Jobs already mentioned in an article on a different "Maharaj-Ji" and we have no connection with Jobs as a follower of Prem Rawat. 2. WP:BLP is clear that a reliable source directly connecting Jobs to Prem Rawat would be needed. Since the reference is to "Maharaj-Ji" and the other one is directly connected, it is a long stretch to connect both to Jobs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.wopg.org/en/webcasts/special-videos
  2. ^ http://www.elanvital.org/. Retrieved 22 September 2011. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=458307409"