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)

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 ([1]), 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)

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: [2].

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.[3][4]   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".[5] Balyogeshwar may be more common in India, perhaps because Maharaji is used to refer to many different people.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The most recent source using it is from ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related thread (previously started in other section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balyogeshwar and the principle of least surprise

In view of the fact that Balyogeshwar seems to be in use as a given name, and that there has been at least one other "enlightened child" called Balyogeshwar [6], 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: [7].

• There are 78 references to Balyogeshwar in google books, and they all seem to be about Rawat: [8] (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: [9]. 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." [10]   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.[11]   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ wasn't used as a name by Jesus, nor is it used as a name by Christians. Christ is a title, the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed".[12] Balyogeshwar was not used as a name by Rawat, nor was it used as a name by followers. Balyogeshwar means roughly Born Lord of Yogis in Hindi. They are titles and not alternative names. Like Jesus, whose most common title was Jesus (the) Christ, Rawat's most common title was Guru Maharaj Ji until the early 80s and Maharaji thereafter. Balyogeshwar is a minor title like Jesus the Redeemer. Some people may have used it but it is not the title by which he is commonly known.Momento (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Momento has once again deleted Balyogeshwar from the article, with the edit summary: Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk.[13] "Per talk" implies some kind of agreement. There's no agreement here to delete it from the lead. We had an RfC and the outside viewpoints endorsed keeping it. We referenced the guidelines that endorsed including it. This is really outrageous and contrary to Wikipedia editing practices. I strongly protest.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was dishonestly framed. "It (Balyogeshwar) was NOT primarily used at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". When he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru", he was known exclusively as "Guru Mahara Ji". But since all that occurred we have an authoritative new source that gives a definitive view of Rawat's names and titles which supersedes previous ambiguous sources.[14].Momento (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I am not bothered about Balyogeshwar being gone from the lede; if anything, I marginally prefer it without. As I said before, we can prevent surprise by adding a sentence on the Balyogeshwar page saying Prem Rawat was called Balyogeshwar in his youth. And let's remember that the typical number of worldwide page views for Balyogeshwar is zero a day [15][16][17]. Jayen466 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Why should it be so important?

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

However, the typical number of worldwide daily page views for Balyogeshwar in the last three months has been zero: [18][19][20] This does not bear out the contention that the appellation "Balyogeshwar" has any great significance to our readers. I've previously suggested that we can turn Balyogeshwar into a disambiguation (Rawat is not the only person ever to have been called Balyogeshwar), and explain there that the most prominent bearer of that title was Prem Rawat in his youth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:AE, again

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Balyogeshwar - still in use?

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

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

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

There's also a ref on rajvidyakender.org [21] but I think we are safer going with the published literature stating that he is simply known as Maharaji and Prem Rawat today. Jayen466 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source

New to me, anyway. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, published by Greenwood Press. See here: [[22]]. 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: [[23]]. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-regarded and quite recent (2006) source: [24]. I think we should draw on it. Jayen466 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prem Rawat awarded Ambassadorship for Peace by Unipaz University

Looks like another of those trivial items that we can ignore until they reach a flood and make us wonder if something important might really be going on here. [[26]]

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

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

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

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

Raja Ji's wife

An editor deleted a name from this sentence:

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

With the edit summary:

• took out name of Raja Ji's wife to improve sentence flow. [27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prem Rawat speaking at US Senate in 1976

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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