Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 27

Reverting anon edit
You're welcome to edit but not this way.Momento 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nitgos, Rumiton is right. The sentence you removed introduced Rawat as the son of a guru. Without that sentence this - "At the age of three he began speaking at his father's meetings, and when he was six his father taught him the techniques of "Knowledge" - doesn't make sense.Momento 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contribution
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have neutral sources for the assertions behind the statements you have added to the article? If so, please insert them into the refs section. If you need help with this, just ask. If not, I must ask you to restore it to its previous form. Thank you. Rumiton 09:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Also, what does "come out of disbeliefs" mean? Rumiton 10:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He discourages people to follow him blindly, and also ask them "find the peace in their life. with my help or without my help, I dont care" (reference: Griffith University Event) So its not about blindly following them.

Also talking about Maharaji formerly known as Guru Maharaji, around 1.4 million people call him 'Guru Maharaji' and i think this is a fairly significant number to not say this as 'formerly'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryvishal (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please sign your username with shift and 4 tildes, so we can see who you are. Thank you. What is your source for "1.4 million people call him 'Guru Maharaji'"? Rumiton 11:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

" Over 3 million people participate in events with Prem Rawat in India " contactinfo.net Taxed123 11:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that exactly 1.4 million of them call him Guru Maharaji? What do the other 1.6 million call him? I can only repeat that you need to produce neutral sources for statements like this. And even if this is true and properly sourced, this is the English Wikipedia, and what he is called in India may not be considered relevant in a short biography like this one. Rumiton 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Events?
The whole article is inclined to prove that this is a cult. People have used False balance by giving references to Negative books. I just went through Michael Jackson's page. He's very controversial, still the majority of the page is about the works and achievements. Dont see anything here, just see an attempt to detrify the context!

There should be a sub topic of Landmark events. Like the events in Salamanca Univ, or in Oxford University, Harvard University (Sanders Theatre), Australian Parliament etc etc. This is not about being for or against. But these events are big enough occasions to be mentioned in Wiki (rather than talking about downsizing and re-orgs of the supporting organizations!) —Preceding unsigned


 * Thank you for your input. None of us can put our own opinions or statements into a Wikipedia article, we can only report what has been written by qualified researchers. Also, statements made by the subject himself are generally not acceptable (primary sources.) There are good reasons why this is the case. Unfortunately, no respected and neutral researcher has looked into the work of Prem Rawat since around 1980, so the record is sparce since then. Also may I ask you to be more careful with the words you use? I have no idea what you mean by "detrify the context" and I am too busy to spend much time thinking about it. Thank you. Rumiton 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to take care of "detrify the context". Thanks for looking deeply into the matter. One question from me? Are the members of UN, or some personality who uses his authority - can this be reported. Things like "Prem Rawat Day Declared by Mayor Gavin Newsom" or Former President of UN etc etc.. Should find the place in wiki, as its not about good or bad, but a fact. Taxed123 11:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I need to caution you about the Wikipedia policy of Civility. Sarcasm directed at another editor, which is how I read your 2nd sentence, is cause for getting editors blocked.


 * Second: Find a neutral, third-party source who reports on what these good folk have said and done, and if it satisfies the other Wikipedia requirements for Notability, Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and Biography of a Living Person etc, we can put it in the article. I also suggest you look through the Talk Page archives to see how much effort and discussion has gone into this article so far. Particularly click on the History tab and check out the versions from around 2004. It might clarify for you the value of sticking tenaciously to Wikipedia policies.


 * Third, please look at the tag at the top of the Talk Page which explains that this is a controversial subject and requests that we refrain from making major changes to the article without discussing them here first. Thank you. Rumiton 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! First: You dont need to caution me coz i actually wanted to thank you for your persistent effort of looking into the matter. I really appreciate your effort. I had seen the wiki 2 yrs ago. Noway, i would pass any bad remarks to you :)

Second: Thats what i also want to emphasize, lets not make original research, but material can definitely be extracted from sources which have recognized the work of Prem Rawat. Recently in New Zealand Parliament: "Former Vice President, World Federation of United Nations Associations, said " UNA recognized the power and value of your message and also indebted to your commitment to UN for humanitarian support" on United Nations International Day of Peace. Can't something be done about this to be included? Also coming to original topic "Landmark events": Its not about research or POV. If a small event of glastonbury is included then why not UN, and other university events. They should be included in simple bullet format (without having any echo of praise)

Third: Thats why not editing the article, instead putting up the propaganda to include events details. Thanks a lot (& still sorry if u felt bad abt it!) These are two news from famous sources: www.Prnewswire.com and news.bigg.net: http://news.bigg.net/n85726-Prem_Rawat_Welcomed_at_Queenslands_Parliament_House.html http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-12-2005/0002821873&EDATE= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Taxed123, these are press releases, which usually are not considered to be reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. Please read WP:V. Quotes about Prem Rawat, such as the ones you described above, can be added to Wikiquote at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#About ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Taxed, sorry about my assumption. I must be getting a little touchy. Thank you for your kind remarks. As Jossi said, we need neutral sources for anything that goes into this article. This is a good policy of Wikipedia, it eliminates the nastier biased stuff. When unbiased researchers look into what Prem Rawat has done over his lifetime they invariably write with respect. Rumiton 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsigned (and I wish you WOULD sign) I think you have misunderstood the concept of False balance. This is a term used to describe a media "beat-up" where a newspaper, TV show or magazine features a proposal which has no serious credibility, interviews some its proponents, then gives equal time to scientific sources to debunk it. Examples of this might be "The Earth is flat" or "President Bush is an Iranian spy." Another, (in my opinion) might be Intelligent Design versus Evolution. The intention, for reasons of sensationalism or personal belief, is to elevate the proposal to a greater level of credibility than it deserves. I can think of no aspect of this article that reflects this practice. Rumiton 10:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leader of DLM
Looking at the Childhood section, it isn't really true that Rawat became "the leader of DLM". His mother and others had control of it. It wasn't until Rawat applied and was given status as an "emancipated minor" that he was legally able to control anything. This affects how Mata Ji was able to secure control of DLM India, Rawat never had it. Likewise it was becoming an "emancipated minor" and marrying that brought matters to a head not so much "building tensions". Momento (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I take your point. My Oxford defines leader as someone who "gives guidance by going in front." To say that any nine-year-old, however inspirational, can "lead" in that sense is probably an extraordinary claim. But as Satguru, he would have been the focus of DLM attention. How about spiritual inspiration? What do sources say about this and the "matters to a head" situation? Rumiton (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

THere is so much info, it is a matter of choosing what to use. Several scholars note that because of his age Rawat did not control DLM. We either have to explain that or de-emphasize his "control"of DLM. I'll have a look at it.Momento (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about Mata Ji/DLM etc, I think the lede is too weighted on family stuff, it should be more about Rawat ie -
 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.[2][3]
 * In June 1971, Rawat traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention.[4] and attracted tens of thousands of followers, largely from the hippie culture.
 * As Rawat continued living and touring in the West he abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated and in the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru" and closed the ashrams.
 * In 2001, Rawat established The Prem Rawat Foundation to promote his message around the world and contribute to global humanitarian efforts.[10][11]

Momento (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with leaving the family stuff until later, but that version seems not quite right to me. If we say he "closed the ashrams" we must first say he opened them. Also sources agree that he did not "establish the Prem Rawat Foundation," it was established by others to further his work and "help the needy." Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll have another look.
 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.[2][3]
 * In June 1971, Rawat, then 13, traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of followers, mainly in the U.S and the U.K.
 * By 1974 Rawat had relocated to the U.S. and began removing the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated to make his message more cultually neutral.
 * In the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru" and in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to promote his message around the world and contribute to global humanitarian efforts." Momento (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks better, but I don't see the need for "then 13" the reader can see that. How about this?


 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.


 * In June 1971, Rawat traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, attracting substantial media attention. He became the focus of tens of thousands of followers in the U.S and the U.K.


 * By 1974, Rawat had relocated to the U.S. and had begun removing the traditional Indian religious trappings that had surrounded his message. In the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru."


 * In 2001, The Prem Rawat Foundation was established internationally to promote his message and contribute to global humanitarian efforts. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Made some more changes. I think Rawat's age is important to his notability so I have included it. Each sentence relates to one section of the article. How about -
 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.


 * When he was 13 he travelled, against his mother's wishes, to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, attracting substantial media attention and tens of thousands of followers.


 * In 1974 he became an emancipated minor and married one of his American students which caused an irrevocable split in his family. In the late '70s he began removing the Indian trappings that had surrounded his message and in the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru".


 * His message is now available throughout the world via TV, cable and satellite and The Prem Rawat Foundation was established in 2001 to promote his message and contribute to global humanitarian efforts.Momento (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from a galloping pace that seems a little at odds with an encyclopedia, I think that is getting good. How about:


 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.


 * At the age of 13 he travelled out of India, (with his mother's permission/against his mother's wishes,) to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles. He became the focus of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of followers.


 * In 1974 he became an emancipated minor, and soon after married one of his American students, causing an irrevocable split in his family. In the late '70s he began removing the Indian trappings that had surrounded his message, and in the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru."


 * In 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to promote his message and contribute to global humanitarian efforts. His message is now available throughout the world via print, TV, cable and satellite. Rumiton (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Against his mother's wishes is closer to the source.Momento (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. If no one objects, let's go with it. Rumiton (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Permanent rift is probably better than irrevocable split. Rumiton (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Elementary Wiki
To my personal experience Prem Rawat or Guru Maharj Ji, as I knew him, is the leader of a cult, leading to emotional and material dependency and should be considered as potentially dangerous. Many former disciples of him think so and this should be mentioned here.

I lived for about 10 years in one of the Gurus Ashrams and I met him several times. As a member of a cult, you are unable to see the negative sides of what is happening. The urge for positive feelings the cult is providing, is so strong, that personal freedom and independent thinking, criticism, questioning etc. vanish. I am very happy, that I was able to leave the Gurus cult and gain controll over my life again - this took me a lot of effort and pain. There are many others, who did not succeed.

Trying to find spirituality is one of the most valuable things for men. But spirituality to my opinion depends on things like selfresponsability and freedom. From my own experience I give testomony here, that Prem Rawat is misusing this most important urge of people to find spirituality and God for his own emotional and material personal benefits.

Everyone, thinking to become a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji and receive his knowledge should at least consider these words to be true and try to inform him or herself by talking to former disciples or by searching the internet for more information. Please excuse my bad english, but it´s not my native language and I speak and write it very rarely. Anyhow, I hope my contribution to this article in Wikipedia is understood. --Eigermonk (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your English is fine, but this is not the place to discuss the subject, or to express your personal opinions. Please inform yourself about Wikipedia policies, especially No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral Point of View. We can only report what reputable sources say about the subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Rumiton. You are right everything published here should be as neutral and based on facts as possible. I therefore have choosen to add my words not to the article itself but to this discussion-part. I hope, we will find a way to incorporate the fact into the article, that many former followers of Maharaj Ji have the feeling of being the victims of a cult which is potentially dangerous. Objectivity is not easally being obtained. It can only be achieved by showing all parts of a subject - I am pointing to a negative part. Beside that, I have a great social responsability, to point to effects of Maharaj Jis work, that might hurt people. I have no prove, that this will definetely happen and that everyone following Maharaj Jis teachings will defenetely loose their control. All I want is, that the fact, that there are many former followers who say, that they had been induldged in a negative cult and had difficulties in getting out of it should be mentioned here. A very good source of facts about this subject can also be found in - here you will find a lot of personal reports of former students of Maharaj Ji. I also can refer to the book "van der Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland", written by Jan van der Lans on request for the Catholic study center for mental health published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981. A very good source of how controversally Mahara Ji is discussed is the Web-Page of Indopedia on Elan Vital and some of their links. I will search my files and add some more sources of information if You give me some time. Besides that, my personal testomony is a fact in itself.--Eigermonk (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your personal testimony has no place in an encyclopedic article. You can express your opinions in a personal web page or a blog, but not here. Please read What Wikipedia is not. I would also advise you not to use this page as a platform for soapboxing. As for Indopedia, that is an old mirror of Wikipedia and cannot be used as a source. Van der Lans' work is already cited in this article. The website you mention is a self-published site with no editorial control and cannot be used in Wikipedia as per our policy of verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is Jan van der Lans cited? Why is the statement omitted voiced by three religious scholars (Kranenborg, Hummel, Melton) that Rawat claimed to be God? Andries (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You again? Welcome back. See Teachings of Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission. Also see Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars where the material from these and other authors has been compiled (your interpretation of these sources is questionable and we have addressed that already many times.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will re-add Jan van der Lans, Melton, Hummel, and Kranenborg unless you give good reasons why they should not be re-added.User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English. Andries (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we going to start this all over again? Should we add all other scholarly viewpoints on this subject again? Should we describe the Sant Mat and Bhakti traditions, the aspects related to embodiment of God, avatars, and all other Hindu miscellanea?   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, your support for omitting a statement voiced by three religious scholars justifies a lot of explanation from you. We should not digress on Sant Mat or on Bhakti but on Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, your insistence in presenting some viewpoints in a specific manner to further yours POV requires more explanations from you, if at all. Note that I have not said to omit anything, Andries, such straw man arguments would be better not made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the article becomes more NPOV when a statement that is voiced by three religious scholars is included. Andries (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How many statements in the article are supported by three religious shcolars? Very few, if any. And why is this particular view point omitted though I have repeatedly reaquested that it is included? I cannot think of any good reason from a NPOV perspective. Andries (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conf) Another straw man argument? I asked you politely to avoid making them. One scholar refers to Sant Mat gurus as embodiment of God, one scholar refers to the concept of avatar, one scholar refers to the beliefs of early followers, another to divine terms, yet another speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within; another speaks of the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe; etc. etc etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what J. Gordon Melton wrote (emphasis added by me)
 * "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."
 * Andries (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, you may have missed the extensive discussions on this subject. Briefly, since Rawat has said numerous times publicly and clearly that God is energy and no human being can be God, the contradictory claims made by obscure Christian ministers is irrelevant..Momento (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, no I did not miss it but I found your arguments unconvincing.
 * 1. Rawat said, many, many things and I think quite contradictory things about this subject. We follow reputable secondary sources on this subject, not just Rawat's words.
 * 2. The idea that God is energy and the concept of avatara is not considered contradictory in many Hindu sects
 * 3. The statement is not made by obscure christian ministers but respecte quite well-known religious scholars (Reinhart Hummel, Reender Kranenborg and J. Gordon Melton) who tried to be fair and neutral in their writings as religious scholar. They happen to have a personal Christian conviction, but I do not intend to cit their sermons in church. Besides obscurity of the author is not a good reason to dismiss a reputable source
 * Feel free to file a RFC if you are still unconviñced. Andries (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. What you think is irrelevant.
 * 2.This is also irrelevant.
 * 3.Reinhart Hummel and Reender Kranenborg, well-known? If you hadn't created articles for them they wouldn't exist.Momento (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ad 1. If what I think about the subject is irrelevant then what you think abot the subject is irrelevant too. I have no problems if both of us keep personal opinions about Prem Rawat out of the discussion and only follow what reputable sources have stated.
 * ad 2. see 1.
 * Andries (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to waste time on debating with you. All the arguments have been had and settled, all the RfCs have been done, all the independent editors consulted and all your requests for mediation dismissed. Unless you can come up with something new and relevant, please don't waste our time.Momento (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest then? Edit warring? Andries (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to waste any more time either. In the last few weeks this talk page has had to deal with current admirers of Prem Rawat who wanted the article to reflect their enthusiastic bias. They had to have neutrality patiently explained to them. You and Eigermonk now want it to reflect your negativities. There are plenty of opportunities on the Internet for you both to express yourselves in this way. Wikipedia NPOV has been explained to you many times in the past but you don't appear ever to understand it. Please go back to your dispute resolution process. Rumiton (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eigermonk, while I can somewhat sympathise with your unhappy ashram experience, unless you can find some neutral sources you will be wasting your time here and everyone else's. Andries' Dutch Lutheran/Protestant religious authors have been thoroughly rejected for a biography of a person of Indian background, and apostate (Renegat) web sites are not admissible either. Andries knows all this very well, and it looks to me like he is leading you astray by encouraging you to think otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, How is my proposal in contradiction with NPOV? Andries (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By what process are Dutch Lutheran/Protestant religious authors "rejected for a biography of a person of Indian background?" Wowest (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to cite from the writings of the religious scholars Melton, Kranenborg, and Hummel, but Rumiton does not like what they state. That is the process. Andries (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the archives Wowest.Momento (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading all the comments I suggest that we do not discuss the good or bad in what Maharaj Ji is doing and teaching. Of course his present disciples will have a different view than those, who have been disappointed by him. But we cannot ignore the fact, that there is strong dispute. I suggest that we read the section "Criticism and controversies" in the article about Mohandas Gandhi or "Critical reactions" in the article about  Sigmund Freud. I consider it being a very good approach and therefore changed the title of this discussion reflecting more neutrality. And I want to make a suggestion. First of all, I hope everybody can agree, that an article about a person of public interest should reflect all aspects of his life, his doings and the organisation he or she is leading. To my opinion, the critics of the person have to be mentioned too. This is good practice in Wikipedia as shown in the obove mentioned articles. You may search other articles about famous people and you will definetely find criticism being refered to. If we can agree on this, I suggest, that we put a section in the article called Criticism and controversies and summarize the critics and add the sources we can agree upon.--Eigermonk (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fundamental difference between the Freud, Gandhi and Rawat articles is that Rawat is alive. Therefore this article is governed by the Wiki policy on "Biographies of Living People" which has been specifically formulated to stop people from doing what you suggest. I know you're anxious to insert your negative POV in this article but you'll find Wiki policies will not permit it.Momento (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of reputable sources crriticizing Rawat and they can and should be used more than is the case now. Doing so is in perfect accordance with WP:BLP. Andries (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of "Biographies of Living People" with criticism-sections in their bibliography: "Criticism and public perception" George W. Bush, "Criticism" Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. This is good and accepted practice in "Biographies of Living People". Therefore please keep the title as it is at the moment. We may discuss on it and then change it. Or is somebody here afraid of using the word "criticism"? --Eigermonk (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal favorite is Wim Haan, an obscure Catholic theology student who wrote negative stuff about Rawat for his college magazine. Gripping stuff.Momento (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Haan did participant observation in the Dutch branch of the DLM and wrote a peer reviewed article about it that was published in the official magazine about religious movementsof the Free university of Amsterdam. He even allowed premies to comment. So this clearly classifies as a reputable source. Andries (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eigermonk, you have missed long and tedious discussions about this subject. This and related articles do not have a "criticism" section because the criticism has been threaded alongside other material for a more neutral presentation. This is common practice in Wikipedia, although there are still some articles that create POV magnets by means of a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section. (See criticism-section). We have had many versions of this article since it was first drafted back 3 years ago, the current version being one that had the benefit of un-involved editors such as User:Vassyana who's review of the article was instrumental in a massive re-writing of the article that included summarizing the most salient aspects of this person's life. We could open the can of worms again and start adding this viewpoint and a counter viewpoint that ad nauseum, but I doubt we will end up in a better position to the one before the current one: a bloated, poorly written and not neutral presentation of the subject. We have now two main articles: Prem Rawat, and Teachings of Prem Rawat. We also have historical stuff such as Divine Light Mission and Hans Ji Maharaj. My view is that all these articles together present an accurate and unbiased presentation of the subject, that is the result of many years of work, and hundreds of discussions threads by many editors that invested their time in this endeavor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points, Jossi. I just added some missing Wikilinks from Prem Rawat to Divine Light Mission. Wowest (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Eigermonk. you may also want to read WP:UNDUE, a subject that has been discussed at length as it relates statements made by some Dutch religious scholars and a student. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How many words are attributed to Dutch religious scholara when compared to others? Very few. A lot is attributed to Andrea Cagan who not a respected journalist, did not mention any sources in her book. Nor was her book published by a reputable publisher. Yes, there is undue weight to Cagan and several others, but not to perfectly respectable Dutch religious scholars. Andries (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Red herrings, and more straw man arguments? No edit in which Cagan is used as a source is controversial. Cagan is a widely published and top seller biographer as agrued in an RfC early this year. This is tiresome and bordering on disruptive, Andries. Stop it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the you keep misinterpreting the RFC. The RFC was about the question whether Cagan should not be used only because the publishing house publishe only one book. No other factors were taking into consideration. Andries (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The criticism section in the Dalai Lama is a disgrace and should be removed as it clearly violates BLP. (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack)

The "criticism" of the Dalai Lama's administration receiving money from the CIA is an editor's POV and OR. The "criticism" based on the Dalai Lama's alleged support is unacceptable. The criticism of his association with Aum Shinrikyo is pure "guilt by association". The "criticism" that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as the Dalai Lama had portrayed is OR and irrelevant. And the "criticism" of his comments in regards to "sexual misconduct" from gay rights activists is an aspect of Buddhism not the DL. In short, the "criticisms" are all fatally flawed which is why BLP says "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article". None of these criticisms are relevant, properly sourced or represent a significant minority. Eigermonk, continued heavy handed attempts to insert your POV is going to get you banned. Best stick to the forum where you can say anything you like.Momento (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed poorly sourced material from the Dalai Lama article, as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I can see now, my approach to enter a critics-section to the article causes a lot of emotional reactions. First of all, I wanted to show with my reference to well-repected people like the Dalai-Lama, whom I respect a lot, that even Biographies of very respected people contain critics-sections and that this is a good practice at Wiki - I do not want to start a discussion on that article here. I am shure, there are lot of other examples here at Wiki. A great person does not have to fear criticism - so why are so many authors here so afraid about putting a small section into the article mentioning, that there exists criticism? I agree that personal accounts should not being placed in an article. I was putting my personal experience in here, to start the discussion and point out the fact, that here at Wiki, a picture is being presented, which is not really objective and does not include all aspects of the subject. I have no problem, deleting it, if a section representing the critics is entered into the article in a proper way. Changing the title of this article from "Criticism and controversies" to "Wiki for beginners" is defenetely not the proper way to deal with such a matter. --Eigermonk (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already criticism in this and related article, but not in a POV magnet section called "criticism". That approach is deprecated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article, but a talk page... I invite you to read the lengthy discussions on this subject that have already took place. You can find them in the archives at the top of this page. If you have specific additions to the article, please describe them. o one is stopping you from doing that, and will save considerable time. I am certain that we have already exhausted discussions about all related sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eigermonk, since you have no understanding of Wiki and no desire to learn, I will not bother you with further explanations. I will treat any edit that isn't in accord with Wiki policies and guidelines on BLP, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, undue weight, bias, "Coatrack", Avoiding Harm and What Wiki is not, as vandalism and delete without further ado.Momento (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, please do not bite the new comers. Andries (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Andries but Eigermonk isn't a newbie.Momento (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think s/he is, but I may miss something. Andries (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deprecation" in German would be approximately missbilligung. Rumiton (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, at Your User Page You say "I am a proud student of Maharaji, whom I have known for more than 20 years" and in Your disclosure You talk about being engaged in a related organization. Rumiton, on Your user page You say about Maharaj Ji, "His work has been of great benefit to me personally". As a newcomer to Wiki, I am slowly becoming familiar with the rules it gives itself and I am open for learning. I will close my contribution on this subject with citing Karl-Maria Remarque, "Im Westen nichts Neues": ...denn der Mensch ist an und für sich zunächst einmal ein Biest, und dann erst ist vielleicht noch, wie bei einer Schmalzstulle, etwas Anständigkeit draufgeschmiert.. I am shure, Rumiton can translate this. I leave it up to you, how much Schmalz you think you have on your Stulle.--Eigermonk (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Eigermonk, you have almost annoyed me. You have quoted from a book that I spent several years translating, for no other reason than that I love it and consider it a work of genius that deserves a better rendering. Let's look at what you say. First, you have the name of the author wrong. It is Erich Maria Remarque or as he was born, Erich Paul Remark. This is how I translated those words, which are poignant in their despair and pathos: Basically, man is an animal too, just coated, perhaps, with a little decency the way a slice of bread is coated with butter. This is not Remarque speaking. Throughout the book Remarque affirms the beauty and wisdom of life. He has put these words into the mouth of Infantryman Katczinsky, a beaten and cynical German survivor of the Battle of the Somme. Remarque is not saying "This is the way human beings are." He is saying "Look how terrible it is that a man might come to look at life this way!" I have listened to millions of words spoken by Prem Rawat. He is the most anti-cynical human being I have met. To him, the human being is filled with a love and a wisdom that only need to be tapped into. If Katczinsky's words are starting to represent your Weltanschauung perhaps you might benefit from letting go of the past and looking again at what he says. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, Rumiton, I remember being told at school, Remarque's birth name was actually 'Kramer', which is a much more common German name, and that he used its ananym 'Remark' in a French spelling manner (which seemed as fashionable at the time as English is now) as a pseudonym. But then it appears hard to verify this, as the matter was brought up by the Nazis, who did everything to defame this author. Do you have any positive knowledge on this? There's no mentioning in the German WP. Best--Rainer P. (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Nazi era disinformation is extraordinarily persistent. The best source is the Remarque-Zentrum in Osnabruck. According to them: Remarque was not jewish, this legend was brought up by the National Socialists. Likewise the legend that he was born as Erich Paul Kramer and later changed his name to Remarque. Remarque was born as Erich Paul Remark to a catholic lower middle class family, and after he decided to be a writer changed his name to Erich Maria Remarque, Remarque being the original name of the family which came from the German-French border and had to germanise its name due to German nationalist politics in the 19th century. So Remarque then became Remark. Maria because he liked the poet Rainer Maria Rilke. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, well You are of course right about the name - one of the many mistakes in my life. But let me explain, that Your translation of "Schmalz" is wrong, it is not "butter". "Schmalz" is something completely different and carries a lot of different feelings and emotions in German language, through it´s taste, process of making and usage in poor times. Especially in connection with bread, which is in German very deeply connected to very basic feelings. But we should not treat us like this. I respect Your believes and even more, that You like Remarque, an author we read at school a lot. He was one of the reasons, I am very aware of the dark sides of German history and why I personally feel, that it is very important, to stand up against any kind of dictatorship, political or religious and to defend free speach and the ability to criticise. So let us settle the case as it is. I have made my point clear, that should be enough. If You want to write or answer - use my talk-page  --Eigermonk (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with all you say, and would like to pursue the subject of Schmalz, which I know is not exactly butter, but for which I could think of no English equivalent. Now that you have a talk page I will see you there. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that K-MR knew Wim Haans is irrelevant.Momento (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The lede

 * Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.
 * In June 1971 Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the focus of substantial media attention. Tens of thousands were attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat then relocated to the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide.
 * When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and married one of his American students, causing a permanent rift with his mother. From this point Rawat's teachings became more universal, and less Indian. In the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru" and abandoned the Indian traditions from which the techniques originated.
 * In 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to promote his message and contribute to global humanitarian efforts. His message is now available throughout the world via print, TV, cable and satellite.

Momento (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Rumiton (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the above? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good improvements, let's go with it.Momento (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's do! Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the lead and put in appropriate cites but do you need them in a lede? Since the lede summarizes the article, it would make for a nicer look if they were left for the main body of the article.Momento (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aesthetically I agree with you, but my understanding is that footnotes should apply to the first mention of a subject. Let's leave it as you suggest and see if any other editor complains. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this image? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Maharaji_Forum_of_cultures.jpg/180px-  Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks a better choice than the current one.Momento (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the DLm should be mentioned in the lead. That is only Rawat's major claim to fame. Andries (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Rawat's main claim to fame is being a guru. His second claim to fame is becoming a guru at 8. His third claim to fame is coming to the west at 13. His fourth claim to fame is that he attracted so many followers. DLM is irrelevant to Rawat's fame, in fact it is the opposite. DLM is only notable because of him. He could have called it Elan Vital and eventually he did.Momento (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that there is some truth in what you say, but the vehicle for his fame is the DLM organization and as such is important enought to be mentioned in the lead. Andries (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some truth? It's all truth! Rawat attracted tens of thousands of students because of who he was, what he said and what he taught. DLM was simply a convenience, a name given to an organization that sprung up around him to serve his needs. It's like saying Jesus was famous because of Christianity or Elvis was famous because of Gracelands.Momento (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rawat doesn't have any fame currently; he was famous in the 70s due to the large amount of negative press he received in the 70s. In the U.S., nobody but premies and ex-premies know who he is in terms of name recognition.  Divine Light Mission was started by his father in India, and there's an entire stub article about it.  Elan Vital is the renamed DLM, don't forget.  Rawat was the legal "Chief Minister" of DLM until around 1976.  Not mentioning DLM, the organization that supported him and organized all of his events, managed his work, ashrams, published his satsangs, movies, etc., in the 70s and early 80s, is to ignore the first fruitful (in terms of money and followers) ten years of Rawat's life here in the west.  A biography is supposed to be about a person's entire life.  DLM must be mentioned in the lead.  Sylviecyn (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki isn't about fame, it's about notability. This article covers 50 years of Rawat's life during which numerous organizations around the world, named and unnamed, legal and casual have supported his work. The three major ones are DLM, Elan Vital and TPRF, all are named in the article and readers can find out more about them. Momento (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Rawat was the legal "Chief Minister" of DLM until around 1976." Sylviecyn, do you have a source for this? I ask because, by my understanding of US law, until at least 1974 he couldn't be a legal anything; he was a child. Apart from that, I think the current lead is pretty good, introduces the subject as leads are supposed to. The organisational stuff that follows is also a pretty good treatment, I feel, though I would very much like to see sources who have looked at the last 25 years. (I may have raised this point before.) Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a "Wiki" source but Michael Dettmers, who formerly managed the financial affairs of DLM and Prem Rawat, has testified that Rawat's position of "Chief Minister" of DLM had to be relinquished due to the co-mingling of funds for his personal use and the use of the mission around 1976. This was in response to an IRS audit of DLM around that time.  This was particularly troubling to legal advisors of DLM because of Rawat's lifestyle, vis a vis, his Malibu mansion and fleet of luxury cars at the time.  I know of no IRS code that states a minor cannot be legally named the Chief Minister of a non-profit, IRS-designated church, which is what DLM/Elan Vital has always been.  That restriction surely would be considered some kind of religious discrimination in my country.  And it hasn't been six months since I posted on this page.  My computer crashed in the beginning of Sept., but I was also quite ill for a couple of months, so I didn't get back up and running until mid-November.  If the issues I raised are considered "raising hell," then Jossi must have a very dull life.  But, his pat answer to any suggestions not made by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji is usually "that has already been resolved," when in fact, that's not true.  There is a November 30, 2007 article out in the Evening Standard in England about Prem Rawat and Lord Attenborough, if you're looking for new material to add.  Sylviecyn 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sylvie, that last was a bit cheeky. The Evening Standard is a famous, though small, London tabloid, and about as far from a reputable source as you could get. Sorry you were ill. Hope you are up and about now. For Jossi, English is about his third or fourth language, so his "raising hell" wasn't quite right. "Raising hackles" I think would be the best description of your edit. But regarding PR's alleged "Chief Minister" status prior to 1974, it cannot be. A minor cannot be held legally responsible for his/her actions, as any minister must be. Rumiton 13:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know how do you have so much patience... These arguments have been made already and were dismissed by valid counterarguments. Dropping in once every six months to raise hell, is not appreciates and indeed and disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problems is that you used subjective arguments that will not easily convince others, instead of giving source based arguments, so do not be surprized that these and orther arguments will re-surface from time to time. To use a more objective argument, how many scholarly sources did not mention the DLM when compared to the ones that did? I would be surprized if you could find even one single scholarly source that does not mention the DLM. So clearly from source-based objective arguments, the DLM should go into the summary/lead section again. Andries 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Verily, it is said: Beware the wrath of a patient man. Perhaps this will be my next phase, Rumiton the Wrathful. (I have been working on a Christian group article. It has brought out the biblical in me.) Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTU
Having revisited the LOTU movie I'm thinking that it only needs to be mentioned briefly rather than include the Rennie Davis/Abbie Hoffman info. Momento (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, the entire pre-1980 period is worth about two and a half sentences, but we are stuck with the old problem. Lack of neutral sources for the truly relevant and interesting times since. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, could you explain your reasoning for this opinion regarding the pre-1980 period? It is the period when there was the fastest (only?) growth in followers outside India (measured by attendance at Rawat's speaking events), and almost all his current followers discovered him during that period.  The vast majority of press articles date from that period, as do most scholarly articles.  I would argue it is the period that deserves the most emphasis.  --John Brauns (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is partly subjective. I care about Knowledge. I see that he has now produced the Keys, which I find to be a magnificent, wise and humorous introduction to Knowledge, and the result of hundreds of hours of public speaking and editing. To do that he had to chisel away centuries of accreted Indian mumbo-jumbo. Less subjectively, nearly every day in my work I meet someone who watches him on Brisbane TV, where Words of Peace shows every afternoon. They invariably smile when they see the sticker on my car. Many seem unaware of Knowledge, which he rarely mentions; they just find him inspiring and fun to watch. Less subjective still, I see the effect TPRF is having on a local indigenous community, inspired personally by him. I used to work there, and like most people had given up on any chance for improvement. The alcohol, violence, drugs, delinquency, malnutrition and abuse seemed unstoppable. Now, after about a year of providing free nutritious breakfasts to kids, there is hope. Not perfection, just hope, which there was not before. The kids are getting to school and can pay attention in class and learn. I watched as a group of the kids presented Prem Rawat with some hand-made spears and dance masks, saw the joy and fun on their faces. By comparison, everything that happened in the 70s was a kindergarten. Does this explain my opinion? Rumiton (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have explained your opinion very clearly, but sadly for you and for me, this article isn't about our opinions. Only reliable sources by Wikipedia standards can be used, and the majority of those reliable sources concentrate on the period pre-80s.  Since then Rawat has not been of sufficient interest to religious scholars, sociologists, reputable newspapers, or other reputable writers, so regardless of your opinion that his work now is more interesting than the 70s, until writers of reputable sources agree with you this article should reflect the sources.  Please let me know if you agree. --John Brauns (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that sources "concentrate" on the pre 80s, it is that they were written in the pre 80s when Rawat was still a "young" phenomenon. That is the cause of the interest. Have a look at the Shirley Temple article. The vast majority of the public know of ST as a child star from 1933 to 1949. And that section of her life get the largest coverage but is less than a quarter of the article. An encyclopedia article on a person, who may be famous for only one thing, is still obliged to cover a person's whole life.Momento (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - the article should cover his whole life, so two and a half sentences on the period that brought him the most fame, studies, followers, etc. is clearly insufficient. I'm not saying his later life should have less coverage, just arguing balance.  How can you objectively disagree? --John Brauns (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't manage to upload that new image. Would you please? Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Image is up. LOTU reduced.Momento (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Times
Thought y'all would be interested in this citation for some more recent information on the activities of the subject of this article and his adherents. Cheers, Cirt 07:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank God for Wiki rules.Momento 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RSN for some responses regarding the use of Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party. There were two responses from very active posters to Prem Rawat and Talk:Prem Rawat, and two responses from individuals who are not regulars here.  I think that is fine for now.  Cirt (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Teachings
There is some material in the body of the article that I think would be better moved to Teaching article. It represents scholars opinion about his teachings rather than the facts that make up the rest of the article.Momento (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the para that starts "Rawat continued to teach the techniques..."? I can't see anything controversial about shifting it, why don't you go ahead and we'll see how it reads? Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the above sentence is OK. But apart from Rawat talked about "Knowledge and inner peace" in the "Childhood" section, the only description of his teachings are the following - "Even though Rawat appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts, it did not prevent his followers from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age. Despite publicly denying any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord" and "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, by 1976 the vast majority of students viewed Rawat primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration.[34] His appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs". These two sections represents a snapshot of 2 or 3 years of Rawat's teachings in 73 and 75/76 but where are the all other sentences that cover his teachings from 1966 to 2007? We're illustrating changing points in Rawat's life telling bits about his teachings that are not representative. It should all be in the teachings article were we describe the teachings in greater scope and the above pieces can be seen in context.Momento (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are three sources omitted that state that Rawat claimed to be an incarnation of God (kranenborg, Melton, and Hummel)? This article is totally non-NPOV and violates policies. Andries (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are dozens of quotes from scholars and Rawat saying he isn't. And this article is about Rawat, not his teachings. If you care to go to the Teachings article, you will find - "Sants believe that the Satguru or Perfect Master is an embodiment of God on earth and a fitting object of worship and veneration".Momento (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. The Seventies years not representative? I'm not sure your idea of 'what is representative' is so well-balanced either. The article should be balanced yes, but it sounds to me like you may be inadvertently about to add undue weight to a period where his achievements were by Wikipedia standards, less significant. The Seventies period you refer to was far more widely covered by reputable sources than at any other time in Rawat's life. That time was particularly interesting to people and they wrote about it. It was new and interesting, as well as weird and wacky. People haven't written so much on him at other times because he hasn't impacted/interested the public so much before or ever since. In private he's achieved significance to his followers and some others maybe - but where are the same amount of sources to outweigh those short but significant seventies reports? I sense that you think all his less publicised achievements are equally or even more significant. That's not the general perception. The proof is that there's far less written about his teachings at these other times. That, in short, is the relevant measure of the significance of those times. Wikipedia should reflect that accurate balance and not your views or even the facts as you know them. Isn't that the case? PatW (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)


 * I'm afraid you missed the point. I'm not saying that the 70's are unrepresentative, I'm saying that the four or five paragraphs that mention Rawat's teaching are unrepresentative of his teachings. Since there is an article devoted to Rawat's teaching, they should be there, not in this article which is about Rawat.Momento (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What a joke! You and Ruminton get to write this article to suit your tastes and nobody can be bothered anymore to try and put the mirror up to your obvious and toe-curling partiality. Most of what is now in the teachings section is made up by you two Punch and Judy's as far as I can tell. How you can do this with a clear conscience after you've religiously disallowed so many other people from summarising in their own words God only knows. What is the source of all this for example? Who said this? ''Prem Rawat's early western discourses were based largely on references from Indian mythology. After his marriage in 1974 he began to draw more on his growing personal experiences as a teacher, parent and international traveller, and colored his talks with stories and allegories in which the listener could find their own understanding. According to several scholars, his teachings began in the traditions of the North Indian Sants, who dismiss ritual and dogma and focus on direct inner experience. In accordance with Sant precepts he has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, ''PatW (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go Pat Prem Rawat's early western discourses were based largely on references from Indian mythology. Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62 - The teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. t Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 (1974) Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context. He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings. He therefore changed the style of his message and relinquished the the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices. Hence, today the teachings do not concern themselves with reincarnation, heaven, or life after death. After his marriage in 1974 he began to draw more on his growing personal experiences as a teacher, parent and international traveller, and colored his talks with stories and allegories in which the listener could find their own understanding. I think PIP and others are the source of "stories and allegories" According to several scholars, his teachings began in the traditions of the North Indian Sants, who dismiss ritual and dogma and focus on direct inner experience. In accordance with Sant precepts he has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery Lipner and also Barret, David V., The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions (2003), Cassel, ISBN 1-84403-040-7 - The Knowledge includes four meditation techniques; these have some similarities in other Sant-Mat-derived movements, and may derive originally from surat shab yoga. [...]The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma, --- Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p.143, Garland Publishing (1986) ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. I think Price (and others) is the source about systematic doctrine etc.Momento (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, leaving aside your indignant polemics, surely you are not saying the article gives undue weight to the post-1980 period? Line by line I just worked out that about 85% of the article deals with the seventies, which is just one decade out of the four that he has been active. That is because, within the constraints of WP:BLP, we faithfully report what sources say, and sources have shown themselves to be more interested in spiritual groups and religions than they are in the less classifiable but, to many of us, far more interesting times since. Rumiton (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC

I'm glad you recognise that what you consider 'interesting times since' are of relatively little interest to sources. You have some contempt for 'worldly' sources for not being interested in same things as you? As a premie you'd probably think that non-premie sources are only interested in the wrong things. I should say that both in the article and Momento's riposte, it is to me still not clear enough which parts of the' teachings' paragraph come from the sources. To me it seems cobbled together in a contrived way. Forgive me for saying but, all you seem to be doing here is rearranging information over and over. I suppose you can't omit the stuff you don't like (since you too are stuck with Wiki rules) so you just shuffle it all around endlessly - rearranging this article as if somehow you'll get it right and the picture will one day suddenly match your view. Like trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear. Aren't you getting tired of this? Especially knowing that when you eventually depart it'll all change again! My take is that, like all 'reformed' cults, this one has a more innocent youth/past where it's practices and beliefs were more honestly proclaimed and on display, and that attracted interest and came back to haunt them ever since. Now Rawat and his followers (like Scientologists) have learned to be quiet about their 'wackier' beliefs, but that revealing past is really inseparable and fundamental to their story. It's like old pop stars - nobody wants to hear their new stuff - just their old hits! PatW (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please sign your username so we can attempt to have a coherent conversation. Of course I think investigative sources have largely missed the point, that's what I said. But I can live with the situation. Until some neutral sources notice the quite extraordinary things Prem Rawat has achieved in recent years, the article must remain focused on the 70s. As it is now. Rumiton (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - wrote that in haste. As a matter of interest, what has PR achieved in recent years that is so extraordinary that it should be written about? Why do you think it hasn't been? If it's because he's kept a low profile then why? Why doesn't he or premies get out there and get some public feedback? I mean you have that TV channel - why isn't anyone interested or commenting about that beyond premies? If the achievements are so great in society what's different about them from what he achieved in the 70's- that everybody noticed and wrote about? Why are his great achievements only noticed by his followers? What kind of achievement is that? What kind of 'great product' or 'Altruistic person' doesn't get noticed outside of it's organisation these days? PatW (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging by our past efforts at communication, this is probably going to be another futile attempt, and one that shouldn't be taking place here anyway, but see my editing above. The reason that Prem Rawat doesn't get officially noticed these days is that all scholars have areas of specialisation, and the grants they receive from universities etc for research are based on those specialised areas. The scholars quoted in the 70s section (which is pretty much the whole article as it now stands) guys like Chryssides, Hunt and Barret, are religious or social scholars, whose wages were paid by various institutes while they produced analyses of religious or social phenomena. So they mostly looked at Prem Rawat's work as another example of the way eastern religious ideas were impacting on western society in the 70s. It was interesting to anyone who was fascinated or concerned by what seemed to be the rise of eastern inwardness and anti-materialism in the external and material western culture. That is not happening now. Prem Rawat has concentrated entirely on promulgating a singular inner experience, something that only some will find appealing. He is not giving any ideas about life or death, or instructions regarding lifestyle, and there is no group to join. People learn the method of turning within if they are interested, and then stay in touch with him for inspiration to continue if they like it. To the religiously minded and to sociologists, this is a non-event. And the work he is doing with TPRF, which he describes as contributing to peoples' dignity, is so far, too small in the whole gamut of charities and NGOs to rate an investigation. Personally, I like what is happening, and how it is happening, and I don't have a problem with any of this. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair answer thanks. I believe it's true. I don't have a problem with it either. Hi Jossi!PatW (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This page not a discussion forum: Please take these fascinating conversations off-wiki, or to your talk pages. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pat. And a large, red raspberry to Jossi. Brrrrttt! (Even if you ARE right.) Rumiton (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Web archive source
To see the source http://web.archive.org/web/19991128014631/maharaji.org/facts/answers.htm, disable javascript in your browser first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I am a little surprised that you have reinstated a source that is a web archive page of an obsolete version of Prem Rawat's site, maharaji.org.  I thought it was a nobrainer that a claim made by a subject of a BLP that has no independent corroboration, and has since been deleted from that person's site, cannot possibly be a reliable source.  Before making any further change to that section I would like to give you a chance to justify inclusion of this source, and hence the claims made. --John Brauns (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Giving me a chance? Uh? That claim is not on an "obsolete" site, but on a previous/historical website. Same as a book that is out of print. If there is a way to verify the information, it is a valid source. In this case, we have the webarchive, so there is no issue whatsowever, as long as we are attributing these claims correctly; see WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jossi, I'm giving you a chance to be objective, and to respect your role as a Wikipedia admin. Even though it is possible, IF you know the URL (I couldn't find the page without knowing the URL on the Wayback site), to dredge up an archived page of a website, the owner of which no longer has on his site, there is no supporting evidence that the claims are even true.  Yes, we could keep the claims in the article, but it would have to be with the conditional text such as "According to a page on a previous version of Rawat's website, maharaji.org, which no longer appears on his site, ..... etc."  Do you really think this information about him is sufficiently notable to be included in this article?  Compare this, and its source, with the information about Davis and Hoffman about Rawat at Millennium - the latter is far more notable, and much better sourced. Jossi you know you wouldn't win this if we took it to arbitration, so why waste our time? --John Brauns (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYY, the arbitration committee does not deal with content disputes. And yes, the text of a site that has been re-placed with a new version, is usable in an article if it can be verified. And yes, a person's personal skills and certifications can be included in biographical articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that he support himself as a private investor, because that is controversial information and self-published sources are not good enough for that. It is controversial because other third-party reputable sources say that he lived from donations of his followers. Andries (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many articles about people in Wiki include a little bit about their personal life that is often sourced from the only source available, that is the subject of the article or subject's family or biography i.e. not sourced from independent scholarly sources. In this case it is non-controversial, it is part of a "personal" section and comes from the subject's website, old or not. Wiki also uses Rawat's history of masters from that website. It is done in good faith and it's hard to see why you object to it.Momento (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was on his current site, and preceded by 'According to his personal website, Rawat ...... etc.' then your argument might have some weight, but if Rawat chooses not to have this claim on his website, then it shouldn't be here. For all we know, the startups he mentioned might have since failed.  I would also argue that the claims of lineage also shouldn't be included if the Wayback site is the only source.  --John Brauns (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What startups are you referring? That is only your' perception based on faulty data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So perhaps we shouldn't use any sources in case the source has changed their mind? Or precede every source with a disclaimer, "considered the true opinion by the author, who is a member of a faith that considered Rawat to be a heretic, at the time of writing". I think we got to accept sources of a non-controversial nature in good faith.Momento (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that no information can be guaranteed to be up-to-the-minute, things might have changed while I was writing this. If an old source made an exceptional claim, it might well be disallowed in the same way as an EC made by a biased or suspect source, i.e. as not fulfilling the WP requirement for multiple reputable sources. In this case, how the subject earns his living is unexceptional. Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the claim that he contributed to successful startups is exceptional, as there is no reported evidence that Rawat has ever given from his own wealth for the benefit of others. Even the foundation that bears his name goes out of its way to state that Rawat receives nothing from the foundation, whereas it is normal for such foundations to receive endowments from the founder.  No, as an exceptional claim, it needs to be better sourced or removed.  --John Brauns (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not. What is verifiable is what he said on his website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange thinking, I believe John. Business start-up money is an investment, not a gift. Sources tell us that by law Prem Rawat receives nothing from Elan Vital, TPRF or from connected public events, so it is far from exceptional for him to say he receives money from private investment. He would have to, to survive. And if it is "private" income, how would a secondary source know about it unless he chose to tell them, (via his website, for example?) I can see nothing exceptional about this claim, it is mundane. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual wording of the claim is that he has 'contributed' to several startups. There is no mention of the contribution being an investment, and if it was, there is no mention that he made a profit.  And if the purpose of including the claim is simply to say he has made money from investments, then we can resolve this by reinstating my text which is attributed and well-sourced - "According to the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat supports himself and his family as a private investor".  How about it? --John Brauns (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both the text from Maharaji.org and the text from the TPRF website can be used. Both. I would suggest you self-revert your deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re "contributed to startups" I find this an interesting aspect of the subject. I have done this myself, starting a company with friends some 7 years ago. It is not an act of charity, and no one familiar with business terminology would think it was, but it is, let me assure you, a leap of faith. Rumiton (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * if it got deleted once from it's own web resource it might not be true anymore, this is not just poorly referenced but no reference at all89.247.15.184 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Please read above. Old websites are like out of print books that are still available. If it was true once that he "contributed to start-ups", it must still be true. It's a valid source. Please leave it there. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also please sign your username as an article of good faith. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At least the explicit attribution to his obsolete personal website should go again. I will file a request for comments if you continue to disagree. Andries (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree. Request away. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will do, but I am worried about the inability of editors to agree about anything. Should a request for comments be filed every week? Andries (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you read the requirements for special neutrality in articles on living persons in conjunction with a study of the need for unbiased sources, most of the problems you have had with obtaining agreement will go away. You have been told that by experienced editors and Wikipedia administrators about a million times. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reputable sources can be used. No source is without bias. Andries (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Maharaji's personal website that you think is okay as a source is unbiased? Andries (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is "biased" about quoting from a resume? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can simply add: His résumé posted on his website in 1999 lists skills in computer graphics and computer-aided design... and be done with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop edit warring about this? There have been no valid arguments for the removal of that material. A self-published source, in this case a resume posted in PR's website, can be used if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, there are so many reasons why the archived page cannot be used as a source, and why these claims should not be in this article, I am frankly stunned that a Wiki admin is attempting to defend their inclusion. Firstly, if a page from the Web Archive that could not be found unless one knew the exact URL, which was deleted from the subject's personal website over 5 years ago, and that can only be read if the reader disables Javascript, is not a 'poor' source then nothing is.  Secondly, the claims about contributing to aviation and startup companies are so vague they only have value as vanity content.  Thirdly, there is no evidence that they are true, and frankly I very much doubt if they are, so they certainly qualify as 'contentious'.  Fourthly, inclusion of these claims almost certainly violates BLP privacy rules in that if the subject removed the claims from his website, and there is no other source, then we should respect the subject's privacy and not dredge the claims from an archive that the subject had no intention of retaining.  Jossi, isn't this enough for you to accept that it isn't worth defending inclusion of these claims?  --John Brauns (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V... we are only reporting what his resume said as posted on his website in 1999, and that is verifiable.  These statements are consistent with more recent statements as posted on the Foundation's website. I do not see what the problem is, but you are welcome to ask for other opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I've read WP:V and from my interpretation I think the web archive is a poor source for the reasons I've already given, and the claims are contentious for the reasons I've given so cannot be used in a BLP without supporting reliable sources. You haven't explained, with reference to my arguments, why my view is wrong.  BTW, the statements are NOT consistent with anything on TPRF's site.  If they were, we could use TPRF's version instead.  Anyway, as things stand, the claims are removed.  I'll take this to RFC if they are reinstated again.  --John Brauns (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you do not understand what verifiabiity is. I will place an RfC on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia disagrees with you, John. According to Citing sources When a link in the References section or Notes section "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted.


 * Some pages can be recovered from the Internet Archive or WebCite. Just go to http://www.webarchive.org/ or http://www.webcitation.org, respectively, and search for the old link by URL. Make sure that your new citation mentions the date the page was archived by the Internet Archive.


 * If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.


 * Though it still defeats me why you think this utterly trivial matter has any importance. Total timewasting, verging on disruption, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't apply for two reasons - firstly the original maharaji.org website was NEVER referenced in this article, so the link didn't go dead. Secondly, this refers to sources generally, and does not address the more stringent requirements of WK:BLP.  Please don't make accusations of disruption here.  I genuinely believe the content is poorly sourced and should not be in the article.  --John Brauns (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Details of resume online

 * Can resume information sourced to the 1999 version of the official website of a living person, which is no longer online but that can be retrieved from webarchive.com, be considered verifiable and usable source in a WP:BLP if properly attributed?


 * I accept that the web archive can in principle be used as a source in Wikipedia, and have removed the RfC tag. I have raised anouther RfC dealing with the more substantial issues related to the disputed content. --John Brauns (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The material in question:


 * The source:


 * note: you can access the URL in webarchive.org, if you disable Javascript in your browser


 * Details are: "Maharaji.org">{{cite web | year = 1999 | url = http://web.archive.org/web/19991128014631/maharaji.org/facts/answers.htm | title=Maharaj.org - Answers to common questions) | = 1999-01-01 Rumiton (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by RfC respondents
I'm not offering an opinion, except to say that it should be considered within the bounds of WP:SELFPUB. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be treated like an ordinary WP:SPS. The site information no longer exists, but this is not the same thing as consciously repudiating the information. It might not be online for any number of reasons, but his original publication is still available to us in a reliable forrm. The current page is entirely ambiguous, and unless another source calls the information into question, it should be an acceptable self-published source.

If, on the other hand, Rawat had asked for the site to be taken off of the wayback machine (which is within his ability), that would constitute a positive step toward his privacy, which would suggest that he may have repudiated the information. Cool Hand Luke 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The site, Maharaji.org, still exists, but Rawat has removed all biographical information from it. This was clearly an active decision by Rawat, and the page in question cannot be found by any casual browsing.  Given this, there was no need for Rawat to ask the Wayback Machine to remove the page.  If Rawat's followers who edit this article had not somehow retained the full URL, then the page and the information on it would never have been found.  --John Brauns (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The wayback machine material is there, and was not removed for reasons neither you and I can speculate about as it is irrelevant. You wanted an RfC, the RfC was made, and we got responses: what else do you want? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think his rationale for removing the content is clear. Furthermore, he wouldn't need to know specifically about the wayback machine to safeguard his privacy. robots.txt is a very common method for keeping information from webcrawlers. Personal sites have always used it. I think this is indeed analogous to an out-of-print pamphlet&mdash;unless the author takes further positive steps. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not raise this RfC, and it is not the RfC I would have raised. As I've said before, there are many reasons why the material quoted from the Wayback Machine should be excluded.  This RfC addresses one of them, and as I've also said before, if a page that could not be found by browsing, that requires the user to turn off Javascript to read, and that the subject removed from his website years ago, is not, by Wikipedia standards, considered a poor source, then common sense is clearly absent here. Anyway, so far we've had just ONE opinion.  Merry Christmas! --John Brauns (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Inserted in the correct place.Momento (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Repeating your arguments again and again, does nothing to strengthen it, on the contrary, and shows a lack of ability to listen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, if I repeat myself, I am sorry, but all you seem to do is repeat that the source is fine, and make no comment on my reasons for saying the source is poor. This suggests to me that it is you who are not listening.  For instance, once this discussion has disappeared into the archives, how will readers know that they have to turn Javascript off to read the source?  This is a valid point that you have made no comment on.  Regarding my other reasons for opposing the content, apart from saying that the content is not contentious, which I strongly dispute, you have made no atttempt to rationally argue why I am wrong.  For instance, the content is clearly not related to Rawat's notability, and is not basic details about his life such as how many children he has, yet you make no attempt to argue why we should ignore WP:Selfpub on this point.  So, Jossi, show me that you are listening please, by engaging in the discussion and persuading me with rational argument.  --John Brauns (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained this to you myself, as well as one of the editors that responded to the RfC: (a) A web page that is no longer on line is the same as a book that is out of print. If it can be verified by the wayback machine, or by visiting a library respectively, it is a verifiable source. The fact that he is a pilot, and that has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, although common sense and normal use of the English language supports my position that the Wayback machine is a poor source, if no one supports my view I will concede on use of this site as a source, but I must repeat my question as to what type of biographical information should be excluded on the grounds that it is not related to a BLP subject's notability, as sanctioned by WP:Selfpub? Your claim that he has inventions is entirely unsupported by independent sources, and your use of the term 'patents' in the plural when Rawat has half a patent on a non-commercial watch is a little careless on your behalf.  According to my sources, Rawat's income is 100% donations from his followers and subsequent investment income from those donations.  None is income from inventions, so this issue strikes at the heart of why this issue is contentious, and therefore requires non-self-published verifiable sources WP:V. --John Brauns (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that his income is based on any patents or inventions, as we have no sources to support that statement. Same as your assertions, which are unsubstantiated opinion. This issue is only "contentious" to you, for very obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you just wrote "The fact that he .... has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB", and then you say you never said his income is based on patents and inventions. So what sources of income were you talking about?  Look, I agree with you - we have no sources acceptable to Wikipedia about his current income, so we should include no content that claims or implies such sources of income (apart from the TPRF quote), but please don't pretend that Rawat's source of income is not contentious.  Apart from his God claims it is the biggest contentious issue related to Rawat throughout his time in the west, and has been covered in most independent newspaper articles on him.  --John Brauns (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is becoming extremely boring ... The material you deleted needs to be restored, as it is obvious that the material is verifiable as argued by me and others that responded to the RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one person supported using the source from the RfC, so why do you use the term 'others' in the plural? As I've said before most of my arguments were not covered by the RfC.  I will refer this to an RfC on all the grounds I have argued if the material is reinstated.  --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't follow JB's argument that the material is contentious but now that he has compared it to the "God claims", I understand completely. I have restored it.Momento (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you have difficulty following the argument. --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

 * That's debatable - yes, he did publish the information, but then withdrew it, and certainly didn't intend for it to be archived. To my mind this is not like a book that has gone out of print where the book isn't reprinted simply because there are insufficent sales - this was a deliberate act to withdraw the information from publication.  We do not know the reasons, but for a BLP I think we should respect that decision.  There are other reasons why the source should not be used, particularly because the claims are contentious so WP:BLP requires them to be better sourced. --John Brauns (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is that debatable? He didn't withdraw the information. If it was not intended for archiving, the normal procedure would have been followed, and internet archives would be requested to make the site unavailable. This did not happen. See also WP:CITE and above. It's hard to imagine a claim less contentious. "He has brown hair" might make it, but the ambiguity about dying could disqualify it. This is clearly the most frivolous waste of time I have ever seen take place on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "He didn't withdraw the information"??? He deleted ALL biographical information from his website.  If that's not withdrawing it, then what is?  He is probably unaware of the web archive or the procedure to get stuff removed from it, and there is no reason why he should be aware - he removed the information and we should respect that.  And if the information is not contentious, why are you contending it should be included?  --John Brauns (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your compassion, if genuine, is admirable. The information is not contentious, that is exactly why I am contending for its retention. It is just somewhat interesting, and therefore worth retaining. A snippet, you might say. I think I will leave you to the Commenters. Rumiton (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you suspect, I have no compassion for Rawat, but I accept we have to write this article by Wikipedia rules, so to include any content, good or bad, that Rawat removed from publication, and that isn't well sourced elsewhere, is simply against the rules. Read Jimbo Wales intro at the start of WK:BLP.  Regarding the contentious nature of the content, my strong personal belief is that it's either grossly exaggerated, or is simply NOT TRUE!  Take this line "Additionally, Maharaji has invented and developed a number of other aviation-related products and has a patent pending on a watch he designed.".  If the first part of this is true, why is there no patent on these products, or other record within aviation sources?  And the second part omits to mention that he is credited with only being a co-owner of the patent, and there is no record that the patent was commercially successful.  The latter part is important in that the source lists these claims under "Educational and Professional Experience" not under the later heading of hobbies.  So, I think the claims are very contentious and were only included in the deleted version of Rawat's site to puff up his resume, and because they had little foundation in reality, he wisely removed them.  But you're right, we should leave this for other editors comment. --John Brauns (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<< There is no such a thing as a "withdrawal" based on a replacement of a website. Same as in a book that is out of print. In both cases the information would be available to be verified. As for the claims of the resume being "contentious", that is simply a red herring. We are not saying anything contentious, we are only saying what the resume said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you cannot take one side in a dispute and claim there is no dispute. The fact that we are arguing about the content is proof the claims are contentious.  Apart from the poor quality of the source (BTW, are you intending that the article contains instructions about the need to and how to turn off javascript when viewing the source?), the content is also not appropriate because it is self serving and not relevant to the subject's notability.  I quote from WP:Selfpub:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving".  This content fails on all three counts.  --John Brauns (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, the material is verifiable, and that it what I am arguing. The material is not self-serving, unless you happen to be someone that do have something against the subject of the article. And the material is relevant as this is a biography, and many biographies contain personal aspects such as name of spouse, children, etc. which are not specific to their notability. In any case, as we already agreed to disagree, we better wait for other editors to comment rather than continuing disagreeing.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, could you just clarify for me please what kind of information should be excluded from a BLP according to this guideline:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to their notability"?--John Brauns (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Material from self-published and questionable sources should be excluded if:

Momento (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * it is contentious;
 * it is unduly self-serving;
 * it does involve claims about third parties;
 * it does involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is based primarily on such sources.


 * Yes Momento, I have also read that, but my quote above is directly from WP:Selfpub - my question is what kind of material should be excluded because "it is not relevant to their notability"--John Brauns (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Even though the following are "not relevant to their notability" most editors would allow a little background info, such as family, general place of residence, hobbies, accomplishments in other areas etc. In Rawat's case you would exclude poetry he's written, personal correspondence etc.Momento (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed excluding his poetry would be a serious error as per Vogon poetry--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a perfect set of rules. Especially in the case of a biography of a living person, the spirit as well as the letter of the rules needs to be considered (with goodwill.) Rumiton (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To keep such a link that requires so much work on the part of readers to even find it doesn't lend itself to a well-written article. Disabling Java on Internet Explorer requires one to restart one's computer!  Besides, the content on that now defunct website cannot be considered a resume or CV (Curriculum Vitae) by any standards I'm aware of.  Rawat would never get a job using that!  In fact, it isn't a resume and it's self-serving to use it from a defunct website in this article.  Jossi was the website designer of that old Rawat website, so there are original research and conflict of interest issues for him that must also be considered.  Moreover, I don't think people "graduate" from flight school.  People complete a course(s) and training, and receive certificates and licenses.  Additionally, it should be mentioned that Rawat didn't go past the eighth grade at St. Joe's and that he, indeed, dropped out of grammar school.  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) See WP:V, if you need to understand what verifiability of a source means; (b) The fact that I helped with a website, means nothing in this context, and no bearing on original research. Read the policy. WP:COI allegations made by you before were totally dismissed by uninvolved and respected editors already, so bringing this up again is useless; (c) The wording about "graduating" can be changed so that it only address the fact that he holds ratings for piloting aircrafts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an outdated computer, Sylvie, but one click on the link takes me right there. I agree that an Indian boy, growing up in a single-parent family in Delhi, who left home, school and country at about the age of 12 yet made such an extraordinary impact on the world, is a point worthy of emphasis in the article. Rumiton (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the only comment so far on the inclusion of his stated role in startup companies has been positive I have reinstated the sentence. If any other comment is received, it can, of course, be considered. Rumiton (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Single-parent household? That's a different interpretation of Mataji's role in this NRM. I bet she struggled hard making ends meet, too, working 2 to 3 menial jobs every day to put food on the table and shoes on the boy's feet. Prem Rawat hasn't made an "extradorinary impact on the world," Rumiton.  He has little to no name or face recognition in the general public. That's why when articles are written like the recent Evening Standard background has to be given about who Prem Rawat is.  Also, the source of Rawat's income throughout his life in the west is a very contentious subject.  If adherents want to attempt to sweep that fact under the rug by including his non-resume-resume from the defunct website, then I it begs plenty of verifiable, sourced criticism about the NRM's claims of sources of his wealth, the press coverage thereof, and the claims about his being God, the Perfect Master, etc., which were the subjects in just about every single legitimate press article about Guru Maharaj Ji from the time he stepped onto western soil.  This article now reads like a press release, not a biography.  You do know that, right? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do so enjoy our little chats, Sylvie. I was not thinking from his mother's POV, but he lost his father at nine. That is not an advantage in life. And his face is quite well recognised, at least where I live, from his daily TV show. The TPRF work is also well known. I have, I think, said all this before. The article acknowledges that he originally became wealthy from contributions from his followers, and states that he currently gains his income from private investment. Nothing contentious there, as far as I can see. The I-am-God thing I believe is covered pretty well: he didn't say it. (Notice my use of the colon? I am reading a book on the subject.) I also would like to see the article show more insight into the controversies that have surrounded him, but until a respected researcher looks into the subject there is not much we can do. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Self-published content

 * Are self-published claims of Prem Rawat's aviation inventions and contributions to unnamed startup companies contentious, and are they relevant to Prem Rawat's notability?

Comments by involved editors

 * Throughout Prem Rawat's time outside India, one of the most contentious issues has been his wealth. This article includes the fact that at least his initial source of income was donations from his followers.  The archived version of his website includes the claims that he has inventions in aviation, and he has contributed to several startup companies, although no supporting evidence for these claims is provided.  Inclusion of these claims in the article implies that his aviation inventions and his contribution to startup companies are sources of income.  Should such claims be excluded from his WP:BLP on either the grounds that they are contentious, and/or that they are not relevant to the subject's notability, as provided for in WP:SELFPUB?--John Brauns (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) The material in the article does not make any claims about his source of income being based on "aviation inventions"; (b)Neither it claims that his income is based of his contributions to startups; (c) Material in a person's published resume can and is used in WP articles about that person; (d) There is nothing contentious here; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The text below may provide a way to understand the claims made on the website in question, and resolve the apparent misunderstanding/alleged contradiction expressed by User:John Brauns above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to FT2's request for clarification: I do not see anything contentious in reporting what a resume published in an official site said about PR's personal finances in 1999, the fact that he is an accredited pilot, or other such information. The information available in other sources such as PR's foundation, the source provided above, as well as third party sources used in the article such as this, are consistent with these assertions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Try as I might, I can see nothing contentious either. After so much effort at achieving a stable article, this time wasting over a triviality is disappointing. Rumiton (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read everything available on Prem Rawat. It is absolutely clear that since he has never charged people for his teachings or talks, he was dependent on the freely given support of those who valued his message. When he became an emancipated minor at 16 and married in 1974, he made efforts to develop a separate income for himself and his growing family that was not dependent on the whim of his supporters. With the help of astute advisors and his own skills he developed an income stream that was independent from the support of his followers and the income directed to fund the spread of his message. John Brauns issue is that since Rawat was supported by his followers in the 70s, any income derived since then is attributable to them. Brauns refuses to admit that Rawat or his advisors have done anything to increase his wealth for the last 30 years.Momento (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Momento, you have attributed to me beliefs that I do not hold, and then argue against them. That is called a Straw man argument.  I acknowledge that he does not charge for Knowledge.  I acknowledge that he only receives travelling expenses from the organisations that organise speaking engagements for him.  I acknowledge that he has invested, and continues to invest, the gifts of appreciation he receives from his followers.  I am quite happy to accept that the investments he has made with the help of his advisers have been successful.  What I will not accept are implications that he has a separate income stream that does not originate from the gifts he has received.  --John Brauns (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares what you think, or do not think, accept or not accept? We are reporting what the sources say period. Our personal opinions have no bearing on this article, as you already know. So why keep mis-using these pages again and again? Se WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to the RFC
Can whichever party feels this is contentious, or would damage neutrality to state, add to their statement above a brief summary for respondents, what the problem is; why it's actually an issue, what the impact would be if added? Thanks FT2 (Talk 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe the disputed content is contentious. The fact that it is disputed is a strong sign.  I have already explained my reasons above but I will repeat it here.  Throughout Prem Rawat's time outside India, one of the most contentious issues has been his wealth.  Most inpedendent newspaper articles critically highlight his wealth with many references to his fleet of luxury cars.  This article includes the fact that at least his initial source of income was gifts from his followers, but the Prem Rawat Foundation claims he supports himself as an independent investor.  The archived version of his website includes the claims that he has inventions in aviation, and he has contributed to several startup companies, although no supporting evidence for these claims is provided.  It is my belief that Rawats followers, which include the main editors of this article, and Jossi himself, want to include this content to give the impression that Rawat has sources of income that do not arise from gifts from his followers and subsequent investment income.  These claims have no other source than the web archive.  It is my argument that unless other sources are found they should be excluded from his WP:BLP on both the grounds that they are contentious, and that they are not relevant to the subject's notability, as provided for in WP:SELFPUB. --John Brauns (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Prem had access to funding at an early stage via donations, which he stated he had invested and built upon to finance his life [reliable source 1]. He also stated that he had earned money from inventions and other work [reliable source 2]. These claims are disputed by various others on the ground that there is no (or "is no conclusive") independent verification [reliable source 3]." Thoughts?
 * Yes, I understand that speculation of his wealth (or not) and its sources (opr not) is contentious. But that's not the same as saying that statements he was a pilot, or graphically skilled, are contentious. I asked very specific questions. Try this:
 * If the material described above were added, what would the actual problem and impact be? Not "it's a problem because it's disputed", but very specifically: what impression would it give, what impact would this addition have, and in which ways would it conflict with other statements from other sources?
 * WP:NPOV asserts that we acknowledge all significant viewpoints. Try this:
 * FT2 (Talk 09:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have no problem with including the fact that he is a pilot, or that he has skills in computer graphics, (although I think the latter is a little trivial for this article!). I believe that adding the claims to aviation inventions and 'contributing' to unnamed startup companies, gives the reader the incorrect impression that Rawat is a professional inventer and venture capitalist.  The problem regarding Rawat's wealth has been the lack of sources, but I think we can resolve this by including a summary of the quote Jossi has kindly provided from Cagan's book. --John Brauns (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So much smoke for so little fire... As I said above, there was never a contradiction in all the sources available to us, despite the speculation about lack of independent verification and the whole brouhaha. The material from Cagan's book can be added to the appropriate section, Prem Rawat, after the text that refers to his financial independence which deals with the same period in PR's life. The personal section should remain as is, as it relates to current events and not those that happen 30 odd years ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Jossi, that would not resolve this problem unless you are claiming that gifts to Rawat stopped 30 years ago? As you and I know, regular private conferences are organised where affluent followers show their appreciation for an intimate meeting with Rawat by making large personal donations.  Let's allow the RfC to take its course. --John Brauns (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please show us the source for this claim.Momento (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you are, again, crossing lines that you should not, John Brauns. Everybody here has been extremely patient with you and your requests and it is about time that you stop with innuendo and speculation. You can do that in your numerous personal websites, but please do not bother us here with speculation and other such nonsense about which we do not have sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would appreciate if you stop from saying "as you and I know", because I do not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm still independent given that I commented on the previous RfC, but I think something along the lines of FT2's suggestion would be appropriate. If we're concerned about this SPS claim being unduly self-serving, we can highlight the dispute by stating that it's his claim while some insist he has no other source of income. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot highlight the dispute because there isn't one. There are sources that say of Rawat "He supports himself and his family as a private investor and has contributed to the success of startup companies in various industries, including software.[75][76]". There are no sources that contradict this. This is probably the most meticulously sourced article in Wiki and there is no room for one person's biased OR.Momento (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento is right, we have independent sources as well as SPSs that make similar claims, so there is no need to highlight a non-existing dispute, as it would violate V, NOR and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I assumed that there were sources that suggested the contrary. If there aren't, I don't see why there's a problem. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This RfC is about whether the claims to aviation inventions and contributing to unnamed startup companies should be rejected from this BLP as provided by WP:Selfpub because they are contentious and not related to the subject's notability. Of course there are no sources that contradict the claims, because they have no foundation.  This is precisely why those safeguards in WP:Selfpub were introduced - to prevent self published but false claims by notable people being included in this encyclopedia.  The fact that there are no other references to these claims either in support or in contradiction is precisely why they should be excluded, on the basis they are contentious and not related to the subject's notability.  Although I thank editors who seek a compromise here, I ask them to give their honest opinions about whether the claims are contentious and/or not related to Rawat's notability. If the answer is yes, then the content should be excluded.  --John Brauns (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot frame a response in a particular way... that is not the way RfCs work. I think that you need to re-read the comments made by the respondents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, please be patient with me and humour me just a little longer and give me an example of what kind of information should be excluded from a BLP according to this guideline:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to their notability"? Just one hypothetical example. --John Brauns (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not interested in humoring you. We are not discussing hypotheses here, but if you want to discuss policy, you can do that at WT:V. 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you surprised I get frustrated trying to talk with you? By my reading of that guideline, and my native knowledge of the English language, it is clear to me that the disputed content is NOT related to Rawat's notability.  I am prepared to be shown I am mistaken, so I invite you to give an example of how this guideline could exclude content, so I can understand why the disputed content should remain, but you refuse to talk. --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has already been said, so I do not see the need to repeat it. The material is neither contentious, nor self-serving, and we have multiple sources, not just self-published, so your point is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You speak of "false claims" but have no sources to back that up. So why in the world you make such comments? Do you expect our readers to believe the speculations of a John Brauns? There is absolutely nothing false about reporting what sources say, if these are properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are the other sources for the claims to aviation software and contributing to startup companies? --John Brauns (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * *** Jossi, will you answer this question, please? *** --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So according to your logic, a notable person could publish anything they like about themselves, and as long as the information was not mentioned elsewhere it would be admissible in Wikipedia? Have I finally got this right? --John Brauns (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How can this information be contentious if no source even implies that it's wrong? Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many sources that challenge the entire view of Rawat portrayed in this article but if I were to link to them here Jossi would delete the links, but searching on Prem Rawat would find them. I have long ago accepted that they do not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia for WP:BLP but they still meet the criteria required to make other claims here contentious. --John Brauns (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost there John. There are other criteria for claims. For instance, if the claim was a surprising or apparently important claim that is not widely known; or reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community. Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of  biographies of living people. But John where exactly does the article make claims about " aviation inventions"? It does mention the patented watch which is obviously an invention and it is intended for aviators.Momento (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone keeps telling me to read all the quidelines, so I have done, but when I quote well-written, unambiguous text from the guidelines, I get editors here giving their own version which bears little resemblance to what WP:BLP, WP:Selfpub or the other Wikipedia guidelines actually say. The only way we can agree content here is if we agree to follow the letter of the guidelines.  That is what I am trying to do. --John Brauns (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this [] help? Is this one of the claims that John Brauns says has "no foundation?" Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I've never complained about inclusion of the watch - the text is accurate and properly sourced. The aviation inventions are mentioned in the web archive page, and I thought they were mentioned in the article at one time but I could have been mistaken.  The question still applies to 'aviation software', and would apply to 'aviation inventions' if you or someone else included them in the article.--John Brauns (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes John, you are once again mistaken. And in your constant attempts to push you POV, you keep making mistakes and other editors are obliged to keep pointing them out. But the major problem is that your core values are at odds with Wiki's. In order to argue an innappropriate case, you quote one or another guideline or policy sentence out of context or without consideration of all the other guidelines or policies. You need to look at the big picture. The whole Wiki project is based on positivity and the assumption of good faith. Wiki only works if there are more honest, neutral and civil editors than vandals and propagandists. And the rules reflect this core understanding. Good faith is assumed and a presumption of innocence applied to "self published" material but as a safety mechanism the BLP, Verifiability policies ensure that the vandals and propagandists can still be thwarted. Your demonstrable lack of good will towards Rawat blinds you to this core Wiki understanding. You can't see the wood for the trees and you cannot understand why your behavior, which is so admired on your anti-Rawat websites, continues to trip you up and expose you here. Your core beliefs and Wiki's are at odds. Wiki demands honesty, civility and good will from its editors. You edit here to impose your negativity and cynicism. You will never understand how Wiki works.Momento (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed a post here that compared a living person with two mass murderers. I would remind all posters that this talk section is a public place and the laws of libel apply here as much as in the main article. Rumiton (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can have a negative view on anyone you want. But when you come to this project it is expected that you check your negative viewpoints at the login screen. So far, you have been unable to respond coherently to the questions presented to you by uninvolved editors, or to listen to their opinions; editors that have been kind enough to lend a hand in this dispute, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And Jossi, you should check your positive view at the login screen but you don't. All my responses have been coherent as any independent reader can confirm.  --John Brauns (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken John. You wrote above about "aviation inventions" being quoted in the article. And when challenged, you wrote that you could have been mistaken. I'm confirming that, yes, you were mistaken. And you are again mistaken when you claim you weren't.Momento (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aviation inventions are claimed in the source so the question still applies, whether they were quoted in the article or not. --John Brauns (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, but wrong again. What is important is what is quoted in the article. It isn't our responsibility to fact check sources. The source says - "His practical and comprehensive knowledge as a pilot has enabled him to contribute to the development and testing of software applications for the aviation industry. Additionally, Maharaji has invented and developed a number of other aviation-related products and has a patent pending on a watch he designed." We could put the entire paragraph in according to BLP and SP. What is beyond dispute is that a) Rawat is an accomplished pilot, b) he has received a patent for an aviation related watch. Why would we doubt the rest of it?Momento (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No everyone is as trusting as you are about Rawat's claims, and there is no reason here on Wikipedia why they should be. WP:Selfpub is very clear on this issue - self-published claims, contentious or unrelated to the subject's notability, should be excluded from this article, regardless of whether we believe the claims or not. --John Brauns (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The claims aren't contentious. And Rawat's income has been mentioned in the article and are therefore related. If you like we can remove "Rawat, now financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees" and eliminate the relativity?Momento (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the claims are contentious and there can be no doubt they are unrelated to Rawat's notability. But 'relativity'?  What on earth are you talking about? --John Brauns (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research doesn't count
Please understand one thing John, one unpublished person disagreeing with a published source doesn't make a claim contentious. And since the article already includes comments about Rawat's income then a precedent has already been established. I'm not going to waste another minute on this.Momento (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, I am very surprized to hear this from you'. You have repeatedly removed contents sourced to reputable source, only because you did not agree with them. Andries (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, I agree that this is proving a waste of time, but if I might be allowed one last response. Because of Rawat's press, anything related to his income and his wealth is contentious.  It's nothing to do with my personal opinion.  And how you make out that his aviation software is related to his notability is frankly beyond me.  Oh, and it would have been nice if Jossi had provided the other sources to the aviation software and startups he claimed, before he shut down the discussion.  I'm also disappointed that other Wiki editors didn't give their opinions on the RfCs, either pro or against the disputed content.  I guess the subject is simply not interesting enough. :-)--John Brauns (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject is interesting enough but this dispute is incomprehensible. Cool Hand Luke summed it up when he said "I don't see why there's a problem." Neither does anyone else. Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got it! I see what the problem is. You are using the word contentious to mean something like of interest. It does not. It comes from contend meaning strive, fight, compete, be in rivalry. If reliable sources were in opposition to each other, this matter would be contentious. They are not. They agree that Prem Rawat's present income stems from the successful investment of gifts that he received, and not from any organisation or from events that take place today. Thank goodness that is finally cleared up. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we'd stopped this discussion, but if you are going to misrepresent my position, I will respond. The claims we are talking about are self-published claims where there are no other sources.  Wikipedia guidelines state that such claims can be included if, amongst other reasons, they are not contentious.  So, I hope you are following this.  Whatever the authors of this guideline meant, they certainly did not intend 'contentious' to mean that there are rival sources who disagree, because the very guideline specifically states this guideline refers to situations where there are no other sources.  --John Brauns (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So Rumition, do you agree that something is contentious only if reliable sources disagree? If so, then this would be a major change of your editorial principles, because in the past you had declared well-sourced contents contentious merely based on your personal subjective assessments. Especially if you did not like what these reliable sources stated. I hope that you finally start behaving consistently and fairly in this matter. Andries (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain. Now I feel misrepresented. Rumiton (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)