Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions about Prem Rawat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Disappearing Citations

What do we do when citations are web-based and no longer exist in the source cited? Right now, #99, which is one of two citations regarding last year's words of peace thing in Europe is gone, (the other is still there), but this is, I would guess, a problem that there is already a solution for, anyone know what it is? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reinsert the text (because of the event's actual dignity) and mention the yet fickle nature of the sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove that text. I removed the text that followed as it was inserted without references, without discussion, and without sources I thought were valid (apparently,RS/N agrees with me). I left it for 24 hours so the author could remove it himself but that didn't happen. After removing that text I looked at what was left, and saw that one of the 2 citations doesn't exist, and the other one doesn't instill me with confidence either, but I'd like to keep that text in there if we can. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed and agreed to on 7 Dec. The text I inserted was exactly that proposed by WBB, and you didn't disagree then. And the RS/N did in no way support you. They said that primary sources, if that is what we have here, are fine under certain stipulations, which this reference easily meets. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I might refresh your memory, the criteria are:

the material is not unduly self-serving; It is a simple fact about an event that happened.
it does not involve claims about third parties; It doesn't
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; It doesn't
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There isn't
the article is not based primarily on such sources. It isn't

These are all true of this event. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Point 5, far from basing the article "primarily on such sources", out of 139 in-line references I can see only 4 that are based on information supplied by the Prem Rawat Foundation. It seems clear to me that a great deal more use might be made of this primary source without infringing WP:RS. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I scroll back, and don't see any proposed text to be inserted, only an idea that you wanted to insert something about this event, I don't see anyone in agreement with it, other than PremieLover, who, based purely on his vast *non*-grasp of Wikipedia guidelines (repeatedly) I must admit, I don't consider to be a strong advocate for your case. Am I looking in the wrong section? I don't see this text of WBB's that you're referring to. Also, there were no citations included with the text, that's a problem. And, as stated in the RS/N section, and as also stated by WBB here, if it's notable, it will be covered by other sources. Where are they?

and your list is a criteria for what?

The material links the subject to the parliament of the EU, sounds a little self-serving to me
It claims many other participants, and signatories, sounds like 3rd parties (in contrast, a press release that said "we added a new building to our campus" would be fine for example)
It claims it was an event at the EU's parliament buildings, I don't think those are related to the source
As I said, I don't doubt it's authenticity, I doubt it's notability based on the paucity of sources
the article is based *solely* on a press release from TPRF, not a usable source

Oh, and RS/N did in no way support me?!? Here's some snippets from there you may not have seen that don't sound like they are supporting your position:

"if the information is truly worth reporting, secondary sources would have reported it"

" If you mean that content of the press release becomes automatically "factual" if a few newspapers more or less copy it verbatim, then the answer is no"

"it is not yet published and therefore neither the original press release, nor the reproduced ones can be conspired reliably published by a secondary source" (I believe the word he meant to use there was "considered", not "conspired", but if that's disputed I'm sure we can contact the author for clarification if we need to).

And what do you mean "If that's what we have here"? It says right in the articles you provided, "Source: TPRF" what do you think that means? It's not *a* source listed, it's the only source listed! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look again at 7 Dec. "At most, we might combine this with the other speaking engagement and say something like, "Rawat was invited to speak at EP events in 2010 and 2011." That was exactly what I put into the article.

You are muddling everything together again and my brain is starting to hurt sorting them out. There are requirements for notability, and there are requirements for verifiability. The above WP:RS criteria are for primary sources, separate from the secondary ones. The guideline is saying primary sources (which always implies a lower level of notabiity, and that is the point) are fine if the article (the Wikipedia article, not the press release!) is not primarily based on them. Clearly this article is not. The ratio is 4/139.

Please do not denigrate other editors. Thank you and so forth. Rumiton (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I still didn't see the original quote, and still not sure what section I should be looking in (although I did ask), but since you've quoted a section of text here, I'll assume that's correct and that it's what you're talking about, and yes, I don't have a problem with something *like* that, after a specific text is proposed and discussed, assuming it's properly sourced etc, none of which happened in this case, and then you waited over a month to insert it, no wonder I forgot that discussion had even begun. Would you like to continue the process now? I don't have a big problem with the text, just the fact that we can't source it properly, and it seemed to me that it was inserted without our usual due process. Also, I see the muddling you are referring to, you are not discussing the same thing that Rainer and I were when you entered this discussion, Rainer and I were discussing the sources (articles) you presented, not *this* article like you assumed. The RS/N statements I think speak for themselves, they doesn't seem to agree with your conclusion. And finally, denigrate, to criticize unfairly, I don't see how that applies, did I say something untrue about another editor? (And technically, if we want to limit ourselves to the english wikipedia, he's not an editor at all fyi) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here we go.

1. Whenever somebody edits any Wikipedia page including discussions, they become an editor, and they are entitled to respect and civility. Please do not denigrate them.

2. Press F3 and search on this page for "invited to speak at EP events in 2010" and you will see the quite long discussion that took place in early December. The source is a primary one, repeated by a secondary. As you will see from WP:RS, primary sources are allowed under the outlined conditions, which I believe are adequately met. You say "none of which happened in this case", but in fact it all happened. I did not insert it immediately as I felt these events were interesting enough to merit expansion if better sources could be found. So far they have not been found.

3. Regarding the acknowledged need to only partly base a Wikipedia article on primary sources, you said "the article is based *solely* on a press release from TPRF", which confused the crap out of everyone. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It only confused you, no one else. Rainer and I were having a discussion, you joined in, and were the only one not clear what we were talking about, end of story there. No one was denigrated in my opionion either, I accept that your opinion is different, end of story there too. I don't need to press F3, as I stated above, I'm willing to accept that what you pasted is accurate, however, I don't believe the conditions have been accurately met for us to use this source, as I listed above, it fails in four of the five categories that you listed. Since no further sources have been found, I would say that is a telling point as to whether or not this is a notable event, it doesn't seem so. Also, please don't associate me with other editors crap, that's denigrating. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have a thoroughly discussed and agreed addition being removed with the suggestion "let's discuss". That isn't how it works. I will put it back, and then we can talk about it further if you want to. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that this was "thoroughly discussed and agreed" upon? You had a conversation with *1* other author who said you could at best use something *like* what you proposed, and you yourself felt it would be better to wait for better sources, which you can't find. Let's discuss. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you could also accomplish the same thing, in a far less wordy way by changing "In 2010, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe"" to "In 2010, and again in 2011, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe"", however, that still leaves us a sources problem, the lack of which leads us to a notability problem, I have no objection to adding the text if we have good sources, I personally believe he was there and it all happened, that's not what I am objecting to here, I hope that's clear. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is required so this edit should be reverted. I do not like it when Rumiton arbitrarily decides when topics have been "thoroughly discussed and agreed upon," then goes ahead and makes an edit on this article. Rumiton did the same thing by referring to the reliable sources notice board recently, when, in fact, no conclusion was met by any parties discussing it there. I've been on this article longer than anyone currently writing on this page, so let's not escalate things by jumping the gun on edits. Again, the edit must be removed. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are mostly, but not exclusively, required for Living Biographies. (I am repeating myself here.)

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The definition of notability is that it has been noted by a reputable source. This applies more to subjects of a Wikipedia article than to material being considered for inclusion. If every fact had to be notable to get in, the options above for considering using press releases would not exist, and Wikipedia articles would be very short and uninformative. The event Prem Rawat held in 2011 has been described in a press release and seems to meet the above criteria. I can not agree to removing the fact that he was invited by the Vice President of the EU to the 2010 event, as it is notable in itself and adds to the notability of the subject. It also counters the malicious insinuation (which I have seen made elsewhere on the Internet) that he just rented a room there. Given the well-documented fact of the 2010 Words of Peace event, I think there should be no reasonable objection to adding a short ref to the 2011 event, using the above source. Rumiton (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The material links the subject to the parliament of the EU, sounds a little self-serving to me
It claims many other participants, and signatories, sounds like 3rd parties (in contrast, a press release that said "we added a new building to our campus" would be fine for example)
It claims it was an event at the EU's parliament buildings, I don't think those are related to the subject
As I said, I don't doubt it's authenticity, I doubt it's notability based on the paucity of sources
This one is ok too now, as I see you were referring to the wrong article back then, no problem

The way I read the guideline, it only takes one of these criteria to make the whole thing invalid, this one doesn't meet 3 of them. Do you read that guideline as saying something different? If it doesn't violate all 5 it's ok?? I never suggested removing the part about being invited by the vice president of the EU (are you even reading what I write??) RS/N doesn't seem to agree with you that your sources are reputable, I can paste the link again here if you didn't read that the first time either. Show me a source we can use and I will heartily endorse the idea of adding some text to the article to include the 2011 event, after we discuss the exact wording of it here, which shouldn't take long at all. And as an aside, in the past if anything that wasn't "pro-rawat" (for lack of a better term) had ever been added without perfect sources, you know someone would have ripped it out of the article immediately citing bio of living people policy (again and again), I don't know what your objection is to arriving at the best text here in talk before inserting it into the article -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You have jumbled reputable sources, primary sources and notability all up together again and I almost despair of ever sorting them out. But if I misunderstood your suggestion, I apologise. If you were suggesting In 2010, and again in 2011, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe" conference in Brussels, at the invitation of European Parliament Vice-President Gianni Pittella I am happy to concur with you. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This does not exactly meet the facts. The conference motto was "Words of Peace" only in 2010. The 2011 event happened around the issue of the "Pledge to Peace".--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no jumbling, but if it's tough for you to follow, let's deal with the 3 things one at a time, if we can get through all 3, we have a winner! (Albeit, now that Rainer has brought up an important point, my suggestion, which you re-quoted above, isn't going to work). Item 1, We don't have a valid source for adding this, do we? If so, what is it please? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What about my suggestion from 11:55, 17 January 2012? And how do you value assoziazione percorsi sourcewise?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not crazy about the idea of adding text with a note that essentially says "well, we can't back it up, but those of us that were here at the time it was written are reasonably sure it's accurate, trust us", I'm not sure we can do that. Regarding assoziazione percorsi, I don't speak italian, and I don't know enough about them to know what they are, I would have to rely on others expertise. Are you thinking that we should use it as a source for this? and what's the link to the specific cite? And did they cover the event, or just regurgitate the press release again? I re-added the link to RS/N above as I can't seem to find it on this page anymore (refactored?), anyway, in case you missed it, it's also here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on Google translation, it appears that Assoziazione Percorsi is a Rawat-related entity. All of the material there concerns him. Will Beback talk 06:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

i fumbled through this site too, and yes it's all about Rawat. What can be the possible reason to present those sites as a source, while the main stream press is not interested in the subject or even held away? Surdas (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we regard it as at least a primary source then? Rawat openly declared that he does not trust main stream media, because he has found himself misrepresented there. It seems he deliberately disregards them as not being helpful to his mission for the time being and he won't compromise with them. I personally can understand a view that mass media are not necessarily a saving power to humanity in every case. So these events are not covered by mass media, and if one cares one has to take a closer look, which is where primary sources come in. The associazione percorsi deals mainly with Rawat's mission regarding content, but I can't see how it is dependent on him. There is at least Gianni Pittella, too, along with a list of signatories, making up for notability. On the backdrop of the article, which is mainly referenced by secondary sources, it seems we can afford a primary source here and there, when it is after all not contended with secondary sources and no better sources are available.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this justice right now, I am trying to get Sinking of the Titanic up to at least GA before the 100th anniversary, but from what I found in the past about Assoziazione Percorsi, they are the Italian version of TPRF. They work with many other organisations and charities, but so does TPRF. They are certainly a primary source. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your Titanic GA article. If they are a primary source, then they suffer from the same problems as I was talking about above (the part where Rumiton listed the 5 things needed, and then I pointed out that it violates 3 of them, and then he posted it again, and then I pointed out that it violates 3 of them, again, that part), so I'm not sure they are helpful. I don't understand why if this was such a big event why there is no other reporting in Europe about this...it's puzzling to me, honestly. But if I use Occam's Razor (for our non-english-speaking friends), I come back to, because it's not notable. Which I'm sure ppl won't agree with, but easy to fix, find a secondary source. Also, Rainer, I don't buy the fact that because PR eshews media coverage that the media won't cover him. That doesn't work for any other public figure that I know of, unless they stay out of the public. If he sold newspapers/magazines/articles, they would write about him, whether he wanted them to or not, I'm sure all the cult books he's listed in aren't written that way because he wanted them to be. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement with Titanic. You pointed out that the information violates 3 of the requirements and I disagreed with you, but perhaps not in enough detail. Let me try again. I think you are imposing impossible restrictions on the information we can include. For example:

1. it is not unduly self-serving; He is a public speaker, and has been since the age of three, including speaking to some very significant people. Why is it "unduly self-serving" to say he is still doing it, when we all agree that he is? If he was a hospital, then your "added a new wing" example might be relevant because that's what successful hospitals do. Successful public speakers go on speaking, and to larger audiences. That's what he is doing. The Websters definition of self-serving is 1...preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. The fact that he speaks in public about inner peace and attracts large crowds (who pay nothing to attend) and the fact that we might report on this, can not be seen in this way. If he was a burger manufacturer, and we wanted to add "his burgers are better than other people's burgers" that might indeed be self-serving.

2. it does not involve claims about third parties; Without another source, we certainly can't refer to the other signatories to the document, but we don't need to. Just to the fact that the event happened, and briefly.

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; I can't see any evidence of this.

The lack of coverage is puzzling at first, as you say, but reporters can't "cover" Prem Rawat's events because they aren't invited to attend them. I know why; I have some personal experience. In the days when they were invited they would find some crying baby and stick a camera in its face then write an article implying there were hundreds of babies, all crying (obviously parental neglect) or they would see an adult crying (from happiness, almost certainly) and give it a caption like "No inner peace for this follower." Or they would vid a long food queue and imply that no one got fed. If this seems like an over-reaction, or that there may be something to hide (there is not), or you happen to believe that newspapers treat their subject's fairly, I can direct you to News of the World. Many other current papers are little better, especially in India. Apart from all that, it is a personal experience, going to an event with Prem Rawat, and people who aren't connected to the feeling there are out of place, especially if they are pushing people up against walls and grilling them (it happened.) So if they want to write anything, they are left with press releases after the fact that tell them what happened. And so are we. But the exclusion of the media is entirely due to their own appalling past behaviour. Rumiton (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If the subject avoids mainstream media, scholars, and other producers of secondary sources then that's his choice. But doing so does not automatically create a loophole in Wikipedia rules.

As for the meaning of "self-serving" - an issue like a prestigious speaking engagement is certainly self-serving. If we want to bring up history, then it's relevant to mention the issue of the purported address to the United Nations. That's how the primary, Rawat-related sources reported it, but other sources gave the event a different spin. Given that and other similar incidents, the Rawat-related primary sources do not have a track record of being reliable on issues like this.

If giving speeches like this is a routine event for a speaker like the subject, then it's not urgent to report any one of them. Let's put this one aside for now and look for speaking engagements that have been reported in secondary sources. Will Beback talk 05:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says reliably the Rawat-related primary sources do not have a track record of being reliable on issues like this? And I also have a different opinion on the meaning of "self-serving", the way you put it. But that is perhaps due to a lack of proper understanding of your first language.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors who think Rawat-related sources have a track record of reliability are welcome to present their cases. The burden of proof is on those who wish to add material. (Anyone who wants to review the history of the United Nations material can search the archives of this talk page.) Will Beback talk 07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof in a court of law is on those who make allegations, and here is no different. You have alleged that his organisations have made false claims. I just searched these archives for "United Nations" and found hundreds of refs along the lines of: "He said he spoke at the United Nations but we know he only rented a room there and packed it with his students" but no such evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing or false information by any of his organisations, please present it here. Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC) And when you say "other sources gave the event a different spin" who were these sources, and how reliable were they? Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Small point here, thanks for explaining the past actions of the media towards Rawat, I'm sure all that happened, and that has a lot to do with his current avoidance of them, however, even if this was a private invite-only event, which I don't believe this was, the press would surely report on someone as notable as the vice-PM of the EU attending some official event in the EU parliament buildings. There are many many examples of people who don't like media attention being in media stories, because inviting or tolerating the media is not a prerequisite for them to write an article. Where I live, there's a big court case about a certain gangster right now, the court is sealed, but I still know who was there, what was done, and who he is. I don't think that's because he wants the media to know, I think that's because the media works independently. Please note, I'm in no way comparing PR to a criminal here, it's just an easy example to make, someone that's newsworthy, gets in the news, whether they like it or not.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond to your other points too...regarding unduly self-serving, if this is quoted in a secondary document, then fine, but in a primary document, here's a simple test, if you didn't know PR and someone said he spoke at invitation of the vice-PM at an EU parliament function, would that raise or lower your opinion of him, or neither? Imo, the answer to that question is the problem with that self-serving criteria. Claims about 3rd parties, if we aren't referring to the people there, or the document (as you suggest), we have a statement that says "PR and his president of TPRF signed a form.". I'm pretty sure that's not what you want in the article. It does involve claims about an event that took place at the EU parliament, and now that I think about it, there just *has* to be somewhere an official record of this event, nothing goes on in our parliament here that isn't recorded. Also, and this might just be an aside, or maybe I don't know something that I should here, but does anyone else find it weird that the press release mentions that the head of the TPRF was the next one to sign the document? I hardly think that person is more notable than others that were said to be in attendance. Is that person notable for anything other than running his TPRF? Might be nothing, just seems strange to me (although, since it's all based on a TPRF press release, maybe not) *shrug*. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"unduly self-serving" is a clear and strong pejorative. It doesn't just mean "something nice" or "something that raises your opinion of the subject." What information would you allow in the article from a primary source?

The fact that the invitation to attend the 2010 event was extended by the EU VP was reported by AISE, which is a RS. No problem with that. But they didn't cover the second event in 2012. The EU daily log mentions the event in its timetable. Do you think that would do? The Vice President of India opened an event with Prem Rawat last year in Delhi in front of 450 000 people. I provided a Youtube vid of the address above. It definitely happened. I can't find any ref in the English language Indian press, but there may be something in Hindi. I am looking.

I don't think it strange that TPRF mentioned Prem Rawat signing the document. There primary purpose is advocate for Prem Rawat in the work that he does. Rumiton (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer the question of what I would accept from a primary source, but I don't think this is it. I'll have to fall back onto what an american politician said about porn, "it's hard to describe, but everyone knows it when they see it". :)

I know you don't mean any harm, but that sounds a little sinister to me. You are putting me in mind of Herman Goering "I decide who is a jew." Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I went so far out of my way to NOT use Adolf Hitler as a good example of how people who don't want media attention can end up getting it anyway, go figure...nice distortion, and that might be the first time I've been compared to him, although I'd like to think I would have bowed out of Dunkirk in favour of, oh I dunno, winning the war maybe? if I had been him! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What is AISE? According to Mr. Google, you either meant:

A.I.S.E., the international Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products is the official representative body of this industry in Europe.
Association of Iron and Steel Engineers
American Intercultural Student Exchange (AISE)

or

4.The Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna (Italian for "External Information and Security Agency"), commonly known as AISE

Come on, you can search these pages as well as I can. AISE is the Agenzia Internazionale stampa estero, an information service for expatriot Italians. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen that term before, and not on these pages that I recall, if I had known it was on here, yes, I could have searched, I just didn't know what it was (but I see it up there now, from waaaay back when :) ). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the EU daily log mention who was there? or just that there was an event with that name? do you have a link to it?

Yes. [[1]] Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think this is for 2010. [[2]] Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) This is Dec 2011. [[3]] Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the current opinion of Wikipedia is concerning youtube as a source, but that wouldn't seem like a helpful video for this instance, but I believe that happened too.

Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source, but if you have any doubts that all these events actually happened, the vids should get rid of them. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not going to repeat myself on the fact of whether the events happened, if we can't prove it to wiki-satisfaction, as you know, it's irrelevant what we believe, as then, is the youtube stuff. Don't make me quote Jossi again, cuz you know I'll do it! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And you mis-read that, I don't think it's strange that PR signed it, I think it's strange that the next person mentioned in the article as signing was the president of the TPRF, someone I've never heard of, and outside of TPRF, doesn't seem to me as anyone notable, esp. considering who else is listed in the press release as being present. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did misread what you wrote. I would be speculating as to why the TPRF president was a signatory. Perhaps it was just done to emphasise TPRF's commitment to the peace and well-being process, and Prem Rawat's involvement with TPRF. The other signatories were all (I think) private citizens. Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the other signatories are mentioned in the press release, some of which sound rather prominent, so ya, it seems odd. Unless you just take it as a press release, and look at it with the view that it puffs up the TPRF a little bit, and there's nothing wrong with that in a press release, in fact, that's a standard legitimate use for one. Also, inserting text into my text is a little cumbersome and tends to hide your edits, might be best to stick to the usual practice of putting your words immediately below the previous words on the subject. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried it both ways. Where a large number of points are raised I think your suggestion (Wiki-kosher though it is) is cumbersomer. Rumiton (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Love the word "cumbersomer", but disagree, aside from which, it refactors my thoughts with interruptions, I don't think you would appreciate it if I refactored your words in any way either, doesn't seem wiki-polite to me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not mind at all, and far prefer it to just ignoring the points I made and letting them disappear into the moutain of text above if you find them hard to answer. (This has been done.) But since you ask so nicely I will try to comply. Rumiton (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to repeat yourself if necessary, I will do likewise as needed as well. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prem Rawat#Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji. Will Beback talk 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do sources tell us that this guy has any connection to Prem Rawat? I read somewhere he denied it. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything about him that we'd need to add to this article. Will Beback talk 07:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why refer to him here? Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This was just a notification of a discussion elsewhere. Will Beback talk 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Secretariat ... provided by Associazione Percorsi. "

The last sentence of the press release regarding the EU function says "The Secretariat for the Peace and Well-being conference was provided by Associazione Percorsi.". If, as stated above, the Associazione Percorsi, is a PR-related entity, does that mean they paid for the expenses of this event, or just supplied... something? A/V support? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The word secretariat normally means a permanent government staff. Is this a Google translation? It looks to me like they provided someone to take notes or pour the coffee or something. Maybe you should ask them? Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly how I see secretariat defined, and no, it's not a google translation, it's written on the last line of the press release. Dictionary.com defines it as

the officials or office entrusted with administrative duties, maintaining records, and overseeing or performing secretarial duties, especially for an international organization: the secretariat of the United Nations.

So why didn't they use the secretariat of the EU I wonder... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. No idea. Is it important? Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know yet, Possibly. Possibly not. But it doesn't seem normal, and that's usually a sign that further investigation might need to be done. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take your question to certain internet forums they will come up with some theories that will answer your question to their complete satisfaction. :-) Rumiton (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian source

Nove Colonne (9 Columns) seems to be a reputable source of information for Italian-related topics. [[4]]

They reported on the Pledge to Peace in their December edition:

LA BASILICATA ALLA CONFERENZA SU PACE E PROSPERITA’ (NoveColonne ATG) Potenza - “Occasioni come la Conferenza su Pace e Prosperità sono preziose perché richiamano le istituzioni, le comunità e i cittadini a ricoprire un ruolo decisivo nel lungo e faticoso processo di costruzione della Pace, nella consapevolezza che essa, come sostiene Rawat, è un’esperienza individuale prima che collettiva e rappresenta una responsabilità di ciascuno di noi”. Lo ha affermato il Presidente della Provincia di Potenza Piero Lacorazza in occasione della partecipazione lunedì 28 novembre a Bruxelles, alla Conferenza “Pace e Prosperità. Valori fondanti dell’Unione Europea”, nell’ambito della quale, alla presenza dell'ambasciatore di pace Prem Rawat, è stato presentato “Pledge To Peace”, un progetto europeo volto a promuovere lo sviluppo e l'educazione alla pace per migliorare il benessere delle persone.

TO THE CONFERENCE ON PEACE AND PROSPERITY, BASILICATA (NoveColonne ATG) Power - "Occasions such as the Conference on Peace and Prosperity are valuable because they encourage institutions, communities and citizens to play a decisive role in the long and arduous process of building peace, knowing that, as claimed by Rawat, it is primarily an individual experience but is a collective responsibility to each of us." This was stated by the President of the Province of Potenza, Piero Lacorazza, participating on Monday, November 28 in Brussels, in the conference "Peace and Prosperity. Founding values of the European Union", in which, in the presence of Prem Rawat, was presented the "Pledge to Peace", a European project aimed at promoting development and peace education to improve the well-being of all. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found another ref to the Pledge for Peace in the Rassegna Basilicata dated 28 Nov 11. It is a PDF and hard to auto-translate, but it seems to cover the same ground as the above. Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a search function on the 9columns website you listed, how did you/do I find the article? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I found it with great difficulty and by using the almost superhuman patience I have developed from years of trying to get the Prem Rawat article within about 100 miles of the truth about what this man has done and is doing in his life, and by being constantly obstructed by pedantic editors who demand vast and unrealistic standards for anything that could be considered even vaguely complimentary about the subject. I am glad I got that off my chest. But you can find it easily by clicking on [34] above and searching for "Rawat" on the page that comes up. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget who set the bar for the standards required for information entry into this article, it certainly wasn't anyone that shared my point of view, but they certainly were pedantic, although finding a turkish source and actually handing it out when it didn't even support what they were saying it translated to (on the hope/assumption that no one would bother to check?) may have been considered more ballsy than pedantic, but I agree with you, yes, he was. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the bar set way higher for all living biographies since I started here 5 years ago. I doubt that any current editor would push to include the gossip, slander and uninformed insults that beset this article in 2007 and earlier. It's pretty certain that the publicity this article received was helpful in bringing about this change, which has been positive for Wikipedia, its editors, its subjects and (I am idealistic about this) the human race. But I have nowhere else seen such an iron boom come down on any attempt to just report what the subject is clearly doing on the grounds that it could assist his reputation. I suppose that is a backlash which must be expected and might be temporary. Anyway, we seem to be finding more good sources these days, so hopefully the problem will go away that way. Rumiton (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your Turkish ref is, but the first dilemma I faced here was from an editor who "translated" a German text to produce a highly derogatory series of statements about Prem Rawat which were in the article. Knowing something of the author and speaking German myself, I was astonished that he would say such things. I bought my own copy and lo and behold! Absolute nonsense. He wrote intellectually and understandingly, and with quite a lot of respect, as I would expect from such a scholarly researcher. Anyway, let's move on now into the future. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new sentence

After the current In 2010, he spoke at the "Words of Peace for Europe" conference in Brussels, at the invitation of European Parliament Vice-President Gianni Pittella. In 2011, he again spoke in Brussels at the conference "Peace and Prosperity. Founding values of the European Union." Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are there so many active sections on this talk page suddenly, and why are several of them on the same topic? I dunno... Anyways, great, would love to add that sentence, please give us the link to a source we can use so that we can then include it. I don't think anyone is arguing about whether he was there or not. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno why, and I am feeling very paranoid about it. Oh wait, they are all by me and I am stuck at home unable to run my gardening business because of the weather. Also I figured out Google alerts and realised that I know enough Italian to do a lang search on Google. Expect more of this, it's still raining. The source is the one above to the Italian news site 9 Columns. I am having trouble getting the cite web thing to work. Maybe you might help me there. Rumiton (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't see any objection to this source or to the sentence I suggested. Shall I go ahead? Rumiton (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have a new section when this is an existing issue? I don't think we should add anything without a good quality source. Please propose how this sentence would be cited. Will Beback talk 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New section fixed. Source is website of Italian news information provider (not press releases) 9 Columns, as above. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So is everyone OK with this change? Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, going once...twice...

Resolved

and Done! Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Except that the relevant page on the 9 Columns news information provider is apparently down now, and the Wayback machine is away getting a new hyperdrive fitted. Never mind, in the meantime several other government sources have run with the story.Here is one, the Potenza Province official news letter. They ran with the story partly because Il Presidente della Provincia di Potenza, Piero Lacorazza attended the conference. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace Education Program...new section...suggested text

In 2007, Rawat founded the Peace Education Program to help prison inmates develop positive life skills and self-esteem by finding personal peace. The program focuses on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes such as hope, inner strength, compassion, kindness and self-worth. The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail since its inception, and in January 2012 has reached more than 1,000 men. According to Michael Gilbert, associate professor of criminal justice at the ~~UTSA~~ University of Texas at San Antonio; "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed by the warden, chief of security and others in our local Dominguez prison, and to their knowledge, only three or four participants have returned to confinement. Something very constructive appears to be happening, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has taken notice."^[1] Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Even aside from the fact that the source is a press release, this is far too much weight to devote to something covered by only a single source. Will Beback talk 22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The information that the university gives us on the success of Prem Rawat's prisoner program is secondary (to the program itself,) and impeccable. It is not a press release from TPRF or anyone else. They are quoting one of their own senior academics, and sources don't get any better than that. OTOH, the advice on the same page relating to their own event is primary; it concerns their own organisation, and would need supporting evidence. No problem, we don't need to mention it unless we find it mentioned elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would separate the two factors, the general TPRF prison program and this meeting, in your own mind. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And here, brought to me by Google Alerts, is some more coverage of the prison program by Univision Channel 41's "News of the Day" with English subtitles, which of course, means more notability. (It's still raining.) Rumiton (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Now that we have two sources, does that double the amount of weight we can give it? Rumiton (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The text of the USTA press release, minus the event info, is 260 words long. You're proposing devoting about 153 words to it. That's undue weight. We have issues and events in this article that have been covered by multiple independent secondary sources to which we give much less space. We have scholarly books that devote entire chapters to the subject which we summarize in a single sentence. Perhaps, based on the minimal coverage we can devote a half sentence to the TPRF prison program. Something like, "TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas, and provides programs for prisoners." Will Beback talk 07:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article now allocates 67 words to a bushfire near his home and the actions of the Malibu Fire Department in the 70s (left there at your insistence) and you want to sum up this highly acclaimed current rehabilitation program in 4 words? Rumiton (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The helicopter landing pad issue was the subject of multiple articles in reliable secondary sources, and it takes only 30 words in the article. IIRC, it was Momento who promoted the material on the brushfire. In any case, this article is not about TPRF. Based on a printed press release and what may be a video press release, a brief mention seems about right. Will Beback talk 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The news coverage was not about TPRF either. They just provided the material, which was videos of Prem Rawat. Watch the news report and you will see prisoners watching one of his speeches. This event was covered on Univision, the largest Spanish language TV network in the US, on their daily local news program, "News of the Day" by their own reporter. How on earth can you suspect it of being a "video press release"? And you only found one of the trivial refs to brush fires and fire brigades. The article says: Controversy around a helipad on the property[78] was resolved by installing emergency water storage for the Los Angeles County Fire Department and by limiting the number of permitted flights.[79] [...] In October 1978, the hillsides surrounding Rawat's Malibu estate were burned by a brushfire.[76] His family and the DLM headquarters subsequently moved to Miami Beach, Florida.[36] All utterly non-notable information, compared to the prison program. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You fought for its retention here claiming the primacy of reputable sources. We have such sources for this new info. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I support retaining material which is the product of long discussion and consensus. The helicopter and brushfire material is entirely unlike this newly proposed material - it's not really a helpful comparison. Let's not keep re-fighting old battles. Will Beback talk 06:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Next event coming up in Malaysia

[[5]] Let's keep an eye on this one as well. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on attempting to insert every event of his life from now on? I'm not going to be ok with that. This is exactly what I was talking about a month ago. I'm happy to include verifiable details about his current life, but I'm not ok with watering down the hugely prominent events of the past until they are only a footnote in this article, unless he is doing things of an even greater scale now (which, yes, I know, you think he is). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, personally I know he is. Multiple international events attended by over 400,000 people and huge viewing of his programs on international TV (Words of Peace). You said you don't doubt these are happening, it just depends on the good people from the press and academe starting to notice. They are starting now (seems to me). I am not sure about inserting everything about these huge gatherings, I think we would get swamped, but in the interest of fairness we need to include the "verifiable details" as you say. Briefly. For a start, how about a new section, 2003 to 2012, at around the same size as that of the previous decades, to be filled out as hard info comes in? That way the very important information on his negotiations with the Malibu Fire Brigade in the 70s and his various changes of address will not be overshadowed by all this new stuff. (Sorry. Sarcasm and heavy irony are not appropriate here, I know.) Thoughts? Rumiton (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's another press release. Will Beback talk 03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Let's watch what comes of it. Rumiton (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, since you mentioned the Nazis already (well, compared me to one at least), Hitler didnt' want a lot of press about what he was doing either, but you know what? It got covered anyway, and that was back when the world was a whole lot less connected. Doing something noteworthy today, without getting noted, well there would have to be some very special reason that was happening, far beyond "I don't like the press because they were mean to me after I said I was God, but then decided maybe I wasn't, so now I'm not going to talk to them". Ok, technically, that's a paraphrase of the situation, not a quote, but I think you get the point, it's irrelevant if he personally wants press or not. He can sway it a little bit positive or negative of the position it might be, but he can't make it swing radically. In fact, I would say he has more power to swing it to the positive coverage side than the negative side, since he can get his own books published, which to the average reader in the world makes him sound very uhm... "less controversial" than he might actually be. Granted, the problem for him now may be that he can't find a reporter willing to pitch only softball questions to him and never once ask anything about his past, I can see where that might be a problem. And seriously, how would a gold toilet be comfortable at all anyway??-- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a contribution to neutrality!--Rainer P. (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

It's evidence that I never clean out my watchlist, but I still have this on my watchlist. I trust you all won't need, or perhaps even want it, but you all know where I am if you need anything. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about Rawat's next admirer-fest? His followers and no- one else.

Enough!! Rumiton JUST wants to promote Rawat here. It's amazing how followers of Rawat are completely unaware of how unwelcome and unconstructive their incessant prosletysing is. I have a few old friends who are premies. They know I'm critical of Rawat and yet they befriend me on Facebook only to cover my wall with the sort of horrible advertorial video links that Rumiton no doubt would love to plaster Wikipedia with. What the like of Rumiton need to do is invite proper impartial press coverage. Trouble is that is never going to happen because Rawat has too many skeletons in the closet. Know where I heard that? From one Rawat's top henchmen. (still is by the way). These guys just don't have ANY scruples. What's so pathetic is how Rumiton spends his entire itme here arguing as if Rawat has been SO BADLY treated by the press in the past and even here now. What is he on? What he still fails to factor in is the outright sinister, cultish behavior of premies here in the past. Also they don't know that the press still haven't heard the worst. These guys are completely unshamed and unaware of how misplaced their faith in Rawat is. They think he is this super special 'Lord-like' person who deserves all this great repect for showing them how to do some Indian meditation techniques. They also think (as Jossi actually spelled out) that they are players on the 'winning team' and can as such ignore normal rules. I'm sick of fighting with what I see to be totally brainwashed premies. I've got better things to do. But I would like to warn everyone that Rumiton and others like him are never going to stop insidiously trying to chip in more and more tripe here about Rawat's 'great accomplishments' - it will always be essentially an announcement by them!! They will remove anything critical wherever possible without being caught and you will NEVER see a decent unbiased, unpaid for, unflattering impartial report. One founding principal of this pathetic group is to protect the all-too vulnerable corrupt, hypocritical Rawat from that Don't say you were never warned..PatW (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't subscribe to this kind of comment here at all, I think aside from being overly rude and mean to Rumiton, I'm definitely offended by "They will remove anything critical wherever possible without being caught". It seems to me, that since the time I arrived here this article has gotten a great deal more balanced in its message (not because of me specifically, I just happened to show up at around the same time). Also, Pat, we get it, honestly. You're not a fan of PR, you think he is/was scamming people, you think current premies are just hoodwinked or confused, and you're angry about what happened to you in the past, we all get that, I'm pretty sure. But here's the thing, even if we take everything you just said at face value as 100% true, it's completely irrelevant based on Wikipedia rules, in terms of what we can do with this article. If you saw someone murder someone with your own eyes, we couldn't add that to an article without backup sources. If you really want to help, find sources. I know, I for one, would like to look over all those newsletters that PR said had to be burned. Just a suggestion. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That improvement in balance you noticed was hard fought and not without huge battles and a lot of nastiness form both sides. That's simply what happens when opposing religious beliefs clash. What would be best is, as I keep saying, premies and ex-premies left the articles and left it for some more impartially minded folk like yourself. The newsletters - I have none but we did dredge some up a while back - someone actually emailed me saying they recognised what a despicable whitewash was being perpetrated here by premies and they wanted to support me in my losing battle against Jossi to include this stuff. I'll look to that but I think I should retire. I have young kids and better things to do. You're right I hate the lies and am personally very angry at Rawat for what he put me through. I am the real 'premie' because I fight for the the truth. (Premie is supposed to mean 'Lover of Truth'). Oh and I am not trying to impress you with my position. I get that you get it. I am just not capable of talking politely to some premies because i can't stand what they say. Having said that some of my best friends are premies. Confused yet?

PatW (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't find this article to be fair and balanced at all. It's become nothing more than another incarnation (no pun) of self-serving, self-promotional material based on questionable sources that aren't even in English. Goes to show you how nothing changes on Wikipedia concerning this article. It's disgusting. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sylvie, I think you need to study the article again before saying things like that, of the 139 footnotes and sources in the article, I count 6 as non-english, of those 6, 3 are favorable to Rawat, and 3 are from sources that are definitely not favorable to Rawat (I am referring to "from a pro-Rawat point of view"; from a neutral point of view, they are what they are). First of all, I would counter-weight the pro references with the con references, in which case, we have zero (yes zero!) non-english references to get excited about, but even if you count all 6 as being somehow "not ok" with you, that gives you a whopping 4.3% of this article's references are from non-english sources, hardly something to get excited about. Also, the fact that you're cranky with the article now, Patw's cranky with the article now, PremieLover's cranky with the article now, Rumiton's not happy with it at the very least, and I'm sure very soon some other editor will show up and attempt to twist things all over again, means to me, that those of us who are in a more neutral position must be doing a pretty good job! So anyone here here considers themselves neutral, kudos whoever you are! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

*raises hand* I'm a neutral. If y'all need someone to diffuse this, give me a yell. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, Steven, but honestly, you didn't do all that great last time you were here. I know you were still quite young at the time, and we have all aged considerably since then. But the "neutral" idea? No such thing. If you go to the anti-Rawat websites and accept the opinions expressed there without asking yourself if there might be other ways of looking at things, you develop into a hater of Prem Rawat, but then you will really consider yourself "neutral", and on a high-minded crusade to prevent the non-neutrals from dominating this article. That has apparently now happened to Maelefique, as you might observe by reading his contributions above. If you look at Prem Rawat with sympathy you will be a ... well read the insults for yourself ... but you will still think of yourself as the neutral one. It's a bit of a farce. But I am sure you are very welcome to contribute here as an editor. Rumiton (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I haven't read either sides of the dispute that extensively. Feel free to substituite neutral for uninvolved. Sure, I didn't do a great job back in 2008, but indeed, that was 2008, and many lessons have been learned since then. Anyways, y'all free to continue discussion yourselves. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the hell that was supposed to mean, but consider me offended anyway. Although, honestly, whatever change you're referring to probably started a few days go when you compared me directly to one of the perpetrators of the Holocaust, but I'm sure you meant it in a friendly way. I do not spend time on anti-Rawat websites, I did find one article on an off-wiki page recently from a google search, and since everything that's not roses for Rawat is considered anti-Rawat I included a caveat to remove the link, which of course, you jumped at. I'm not sure you can see neutral from where you are. That is why I am here. Still. And FYI, if you'll recall, the article I quoted from was to source a claim of 1 million people at an event in India, hardly an espousing of something Anti-Rawat in nature! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean offence, and it was part of a friendly exchange, but your statement that you would recognise when a piece of information from a primary source was acceptable certainly put me in mind of the historical extreme right. And your rather snide ref to gold toilet seats? I know where you got that one. The gold used in plumbing is only a few microns thick. They sell gold plated faucets at my local (very egalitarian) plumbing supply shop. [6] They are not expensive and last forever. I once pointed that out on the forum where it is trumpeted and might as well have not wasted my time. There are explanations for most of the seeds of high indignation we see against Prem Rawat, but self-righteous indignation is such an addictive emotion that few people, having tasted it, are prepared to let it go. And now we are turning into a forum again. Rumiton (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then I accept that you didn't mean to offend, but to be clear, I was answering your question as honestly as I could. I don't know what exactly I would have accepted from that source, for that, and it *was* similar to the politician who said "it's hard to explain but everyone knows porn when they see it", I don't see that as a right-wing philosophy nor did I mean to imply that it's only acceptable when I say so (such as Guerring's quote), only that I have an opinion based on what I read. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree. This isn't easy. I spend quite a lot of time on Wikipedia, and have found that as an article subject, Prem Rawat isn't easily comparable to anyone else. The WP rules that work well elsewhere can turn around and bite your *rse. To make a fair article I think it takes quite a lot of open-mindedness and a certain kindness all round. (What's that sound? Oh, it's a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the other side of the room.) But for the record, I am not unhappy with what we have worked towards so far. I think the pre-1980 section sums up the pros and cons fairly well, without gushing praise or supercilious sniping (of both of which there was a lot.) It is just the source-poor post 80's that frustrate me. I acknowledge that PR wants it that way, with his every event only publicised by word-of-mouth, but I deny that the media is the good guy in the scenario. Anyway, did you look at Captain Carter's interview above? Rumiton (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually searched for "carter" the only reference I can find is you asking right above. What link is that pls? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant this interview which I linked to above. Please summon your neutrality and try to get a feeling for the impact Prem Rawat often has on ordinary people. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I read the article, and all the cooments, and watched the video (hosted on a TPRF website btw, and the video is an interview with a TPRF volunteer). Sounds good, I also noticed this bit at the end, "we’d welcome him here and put the word out for him to give his speech to our whole population—which is 2,200 offenders" which made me wonder how many ppl are in his program, obviously a lot less than 2200. Also, this still seems like it would be best suited for a TPRF article, unless he personally is involved with the program, which I'm not seeing evidence of. Why don't we have a TPRF article or section? (I think I remember arriving at the conclusion that either TPRF wasn't noticable enough, or that we had something like 12 different Rawat-related articles (or whatever number it was) and that seemed ridiculous, or was it something else?) Maybe it's time to revisit that idea? They seem to have their fingers in a lot pies, cumulatively they might merit a page of their own, I'm not saying they do, I'm just saying I'd certainly look at it again. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the address he gave live to the whole population (or that was the intention...I doubt they forced anyone who didn't want to go) with the inmates who actually attended the program. According to the University of Texas, The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at the Dominguez unit since 2007. During that time, it has reached more than 1,000 men. They also commented that the reincarceration rate was only 3 or 4 out of this 1000, which is far less than normal. Rumiton (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In the video, and in that interview article, he says they have invited Rawat to speak (He hasn't replied yet, and hasn't given that address yet according to your article), to the entire population of Dominguez prison, which is 2200. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

6:17 mark of the video. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That video is a few weeks old. The address to which the entire prison was invited took place last week. (See the Univision News report.) Rumiton (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Please tell me if there is any way I can make all this information more accessible. Rumiton (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The univision news report doesn't show him at the prison, although the text does say he spoke there the previous day; it doesn't say who he ended up speaking to. Also the person that quoted that "3-4 out of over 700" number wasn't in any uniform, wasn't the Captain Carter who is in charge of the program, wasn't identified on the footage by any name or designation and was cut off halfway through his sentence so we can't tell what he was going to say (although I think Captain Carter was saying something about a lower than average recidivism rate as well). Also, this is all on TPRF websites still. That's still a problem. Also, after making me re-watch that Captain Carter video several times to keep replying here, I notice that he very much looks like he's reading answers from off-camera cue cards when he looks off to his right and down. Which may just be for clarity purposes, but it's not really an interview if it's scripted, and interviewed by the TPRF, for the TPRF. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything, absolutely anything can be challenged in the way you are doing this. It is grossly unfair to all the people concerned. Rumiton (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The person who quoted 3 or 4 out of 1000 attendees didn't need to be in uniform. He is an associate professor of criminology at the University of Texas. Rumiton (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Your insinuations are outrageously insulting to the professor and also to the prison officer. Rumiton (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to get the strong impression I am being wikilawyered here by all these specious objections to links I only posted for background information. I expected better of you. Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, He doesn't say that, he says 3-4 out of over 700, secondly how do you know who he is? I didn't say he needed to be in uniform did I? I just pointed out I have no idea who he is, and doesn't seem to represent anything. If he is the crim prof you say he is, what are his connections to the Dominguez prison, and why aren't his numbers the same as Captain Carter, and why did they chop it off mid-sentence? I'm not asking for much here but I do have standards still. If my objections were specious, I'd agree, however, I'll just have to assume that word has a different meaning where you are. Up here it isn't a term used just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view. As always, I'm willing to listen to the masses here too, are all my objections specious suddenly? (Not you Rumiton, you already stated your POV on them, I'm looking at you masses!) :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong link again. I am sorry this is complicated. Look at [7]. OK? This is a statement from the University of Texas, not from TPRF, and it quotes one of their own senior staff. After drawing attention to this source 3 or 4 times above to no effect, I have taken the liberty of subtly highlighting his name and title in the following text lest it be overlooked again. Here is part of the quote the university gave from him: "The Prem Rawat Foundation's Inner Peace program has only one agenda -- to help incarcerated people find an inner personal peace that allows them to understand themselves, drop their defensive tough-guy masks and reach a point where they are okay with the genuine person inside who has feelings, emotions and fears," said ***>>>Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice<<<***. "It is through this process of introspection that they begin to understand what they want from their lives and what they have to do rebuild their lives and repair relationships." Rumiton (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement by the prison official (who from the silver cross at his chest appears to be a religious vistor) was not "cut off," it was overwritten by the Spanish translation. This is a Spanish language TV network. If you speak Spanish you can listen to the translator saying "...only 3 or 4 reoffenders." That figure of "more than 700" does not contradict the figure given by the professor of "more than 1000" but the professor would be the more acceptable source. Rumiton (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Back to the interview with Capt Lorenzo Carter, at 00:42 the camera pans through a room with inmates clearly watching Prem Rawat on the TV as part of the Peace Education Program. This is about him. Rumiton (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another video I found, produced by TPRF, which shows more scenes that illustrate that Prem Rawat's speeches make up a big part of the Peace Education program. (If you are already convinced of this point, you probably don't need to watch this one.) It also feautures Dr Michael Gilbert speaking on the subject (see above.) And the same prison guard speaks about the very low recidivist rate, but estimates between 700 and 1000 people took part, which accounts for the discrepancy. This vid was apparently made some time ago, before Prem Rawat was invited to the prison. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've now watched another 10+ minute promo video for TPRF that doesn't say what you said it does, but I'll save some time and assume I watched the wrong one again, even though it's the one you said to watch, again. I hardly know where to begin with this one. In no particular order, here are the things I see in this video that either I'm not comfortable with, see a problem with, leave me with more questions than it answers, or didn't arrive at the same conclusion as you about:

Why does does the video say "This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it."?
It was uploaded by the TPRF, with the tags PEP TPRF PROMO, how can someone claim it's not a self-serving promotional advertisment?
It *only* shows Prem Rawat on film talking to an audience somewhere else, not at the prison, and not addressing the prisoners. (If I show this video to the Prime Minister of Canada, would someone claim that Prem Rawat had a personal connection to the Prime Minister? Of course not)
You said it shows that the speeches make up a big part of the PEP program (a TPRF program, not a Prem Rawat program), there is no evidence of that. The 10+ minutes of the video show a couple of frames of inmates watching a movie, I think it's safe to assume the watched the whole movie, but we have no idea what they do for sure, and we have no idea what else they do, other than meet twice a week. This video doesn't answer the question of PR's personal level of importance to the program, or whether or not these videos were produced for these prisoners, or if they are just watching generic Rawat footage (which looks to be the case to me, but I might be wrong, I'm just saying that's how it looks to me)
On two shots in the video we see Titles of the movie beng watched, it's "Words of Peace", which I hardly think can be said to have been produced specifically for these prisoners, since it's been shown on spanish tv stations for years.
At 6:10 in the video, you can see a TV screen behind the inmate that looks like it has a DVD index on it, with the heading "Two Friends: Mind and Heart", can you confirm what video that is from? (Words of Peace perhaps?)
You stated above that Youtube footage is absolutely not useful to use here, so why are you presenting me with things you *know* I'm not going to agree with using? Even if Youtube footage was allowed, this would only be relevant to a TPRF article.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to insult you (or anyone else) but, I'm feeling a little bit like I'm at the door with the Jehovah's Witness people, I listened, I asked some questions they didn't/wouldn't answer, I've explained my position time and time again, and yet, they keep coming back even though they don't have a new message, or answers to my questions that do actually answer my questions. I don't think you're doing that on purpose, but that's how I'm starting to feel, I've now watched/read over 30 minutes of promotional TPRF material, all of it at least twice, so that's a minimum of an hour, not including writing here, and nothing I've seen comes even close to admissible for this article that I can see. I think I've given this issue waaaay beyond what would be considered an honest effort at this point. I am not trying to convince you of anything, but I guess it's safe to say at this point, you haven't convinced me that this is notable or relevant enough to go into this article, but that's just one editor's opinion and it's certainly possible to gain consensus on an article without my vote. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Spot on Maelefique. Completely agree. Only way to stomach watching one-sided TPRF promos (which include Rawat) is to laugh at his repeated use of 'hushed voice' to impress sincerity. That and his 'doe-eyed' sincere pose.PatW (talk)

Maelefique, we seem to have this problem ongoingly. I was not trying to convince you that those links were acceptable for the article. They are primary sources, and the most uber-stringent standards will be applied to them, that is accepted. Basically, if they say anything nice about Prem Rawat, they don't get in. I just thought that as you have passed on opinions and factoids you gleaned from mostly anonymous people who have everything to gain from their peers by disparaging this subject, you might be interested in some positive statements from an identifiable professor, a clergyman and a prison officer, who risk ridicule and have nothing to gain from telling their peers that listening to Prem Rawat has made positive changes in them or in people they know. I got it wrong. And your Jehovah's Witness comparison? My vocabulary fails me. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So you've been giving me these links to follow for reasons that have nothing to do with adding to this article? Please don't do that. And I'm not sure what the "anonymous gleaning" is you're referring to, but I have had no opinions or factoids of any kind passed to me through anyone. In fact, for the last week or 2 all I've done is look at *your* suggested reading/viewing list, which now, if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying you just provided so I personally could learn more about PR?? Let's jump to the other end of this conversation instead. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the article at this time? If so, please present your suggested text (with appropriate cites of course), so that it can be discussed and if needed, tweaked or adjusted. I don't deny that these days PR seems to be trying to present a message of peace, but is it as notable? The press says no, and please don't tell me again that it's because PR avoids the press, I just don't believe that's why. Also, for clarity, I didn't compare you to a Jehovah's Witness (not that there's anything wrong with them anyway) I compared how I feel when talking to them, I am quite certain that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly be said/demonstrated/proven or anything else that would change their mind about what they believe, and that's frustrating when, from where I stand, there's obvious problems with what they are suggesting I should believe. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It used to take generations and centuries in human history, until the input of true saints, or whatever you chose to call these phenomena, reached all levels of a society and was generally recognised – by then usually garbeled in some ubiquitous religious context, that allowed no reverse construction back to understanding. This in mind, I think we’re doing quite well here. So let’s try some patience. I wouldn’t be amazed if our subject’s contours continue to gain in distinction in public perception, and favourably in such a way, that the traditional media are not in a position to switch the subject’s notability on or off arbitrarily. I am curious about it. His seventies-persona is IMO mostly interesting for veterans who were there, much like fathers and grandfathers still talk about the war and still can't decide whose fault everything was and whose bullet hit them. Well, that has to be served, too. But none of us wants to be measured solely by our teen pranks (only an analogy).--Rainer P. (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the view that he doesn't get press because he actively avoids it, and the view that he doesn't get press because the media can "switch the subject’s notability on or off arbitrarily" can both be correct. I don't believe either of those things is correct, although I can understand him getting *less* press because he avoids it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rainer's advice for patience is timely and good. I would say PR actively avoids the media because of its history of trying to control (not always negatively) his public image. All events he has done since the 70's are advertised by word of mouth only, unless another entity is involved, such as the University of Texas. That's the only time we get any press coverage to use here.

You say you have had "no opinions or factoids of any kind passed to me through anyone" but most of the opinions you express so confidently come directly from their anti-Rawat website.

You have him saying, "I said I was God" which is a major plank in their program. The best sources (in the article) point out he said the opposite, that the inner experience he taught was divine, not him.
You say "since he can get his own books published" which is a twisting of what we know about Cagan's book. The publishing house was owned by students, yes, but the person who wrote it was not connected with him. I have already agreed that she got carried away and produced a hagiography, which is not permissible for contentious information, but that doesn't mean "he got it published."
The gold toilet. You didn't learn that from anti-sites? Of course you did. Gold plated. A Style crime, arguably, but what in the 70's was otherwise?
You say "These days PR seems to be trying to present a message of peace, but is it notable?" That was all he ever presented, and no, it was never very notable. The press found other things to "note."
You say "So you've been giving me these links to follow for reasons that have nothing to do with adding to this article?" You have a horrible way of destructively paraphrasing things that don't suit you. The links I sent you explained some of the points you raised, mostly your contention that the Peace on the Inside program was about TPRF, not PR. TPRF disseminates PR's sppeches, and that is what they did here. You could clearly see him speaking in the vids, which AFAIK, were NOT produced specially, and no one said they were. They are selections from his public speeches, chosen to emphasise certain points which were considered relevent to the prisoner program. That is the material used, so they are almost entirely about PR (though this is not to denigrate the work done by the volunteers.)
I don't know where "Two friends, mind and heart" comes from, but it sounds like a title someone has given to a selection of these excerpts, probably taken from a sentence Prem Rawat spoke.
You say you got a message "This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it." I don't get that message, and you were able to watch it, no? If I can verify it, I will e-mail TPRF. I am sure that was not the intention.

Ok, I looked into this. It's a Youtube message which makes the vid semi-private. You can't search it, you need the URL to see it, which I just gave to the world. No one told me not to, and I got it from Facebook anyway. I hope no offense was caused to anyone. Rumiton (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else? Rumiton (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your proposal that I suggest an edit to make concerning this program, if you cast you mind back to Jan 28 you will see it was my suggested addition that started all this stuff. Here it is again, we can review it in the light of all the above. This section's getting long so I will start a new one:

Someone deleted it or moved it or something. Search above for Suggested addition and you should find it. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish version of the article

I have read the Spanish version of the article once more and find it superb. A good example of what Wikipedia should be. In comparison the English version is still rubbish. Either Spanish speaking people are very different from English speaking people, which I don't think is the case, (a little different perhaps, but not that different), or there is a concentration of anti-Prem and anti-premies editors in the English version, which seems to be the case, seeing the absurd, ridiculous, denigrating, offensive and vulgar personal attacks on pro-Prem editors by some anti-Prem editors, which say a lot about the authors themselves. I repeat it again, in my almost humble opinion :-) this article is still rubbish, despite the improvement from a couple of years ago. I probably lost my time trying to help.--PremieLover (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and we look forward to you helping make the article even better by suggesting future edits and finding more sources to make this article even more complete and balanced. Yes, I realize you haven't made any inputs to this article yet, other than to espouse your personal beliefs on this page, which, of course, as you realize, isn't very useful on Wikipedia due to it's policies, which were meticulously crafted by people like Jossi, while employed by Rawat, secretly. However, I'm sure that over time we will be able to welcome your suggestions and inputs with the same interest as every other editor who has decided to donate some of the free time in their life to make sure things here are done right. So thanks again, and in advance! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I just read the spanish version, and it's a travesty. It uses Cagan's book for the vast majority of its information, and it completely ignores the 70's, with the exception of mentioning that he got married. Frankly, it's shocking and embarrassing, if this was a student paper, I would have given it an "F". Thank you for bringing this to my attention. ¿dónde está mi diccionario Español/Inglés ...I have work to do...-- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the list of contributors if you want to know who to blame. Will Beback talk 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

removed my comments because it Maelefique said it better.PatW (talk)

Very obvious error

There's a very obvious error in 1960s section that I've been waiting for someone to correct for over 18 months now. Would you like me to do it, or does it need to be discussed?Momento (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. Did you enjoy your holiday? I enjoyed mine very much. Travelled, did new things, met new people. Anyway, in the interest of whatever harmony we still have left, I urge you to discuss your proposal here beforehand. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rumiton, yes I had a great time. I think I'll let others discuss it before I venture a solution.Momento (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What is it?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

18 months looking at an error and rather than tell us what it is, you think you'll wait and let us discuss it? I think it's safe to say if we didn't notice it in the last 18 months, there really isn't any need to wait any longer to tell us what it is. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I thought you knew I had been banned from discussing anything to do with Prem Rawat or associated articles in April 2010. Incredibly that also included editor talk pages and so I was banned for another 12 month in February 2011 for talking about Prem Rawat on a talk page. So I couldn't tell anyone.Momento (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but you aren't banned now. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat was not given the title "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" before his father died. Can I change it now?Momento (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is that obvious, and what is your source? It looks like we have 2 sources that say he was. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Geaves doesn't list that title and Mangalwadi only refers to "Balyogeshwar". The titles "Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Maharaj" belong to the Sat Guru and would only have been given to Rawat after he became the Sat Guru. Not before his Guru died as the article states.Momento (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be right, but I'd like to double-check the references we've already used, it's hard to believe after all the struggles we went through on this article already that we got the sources wrong to begin with. Also, if you're correct that the two we have are wrong, then we'll still need a source to edit it in the direction you're suggesting. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read both cites, and don't see where either one of them refers to him by that name either, how would you suggest we repair that? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll be surprised at the number of factual and Wiki errors in this article. Bal Yogeshwar was a handy made up name by the Indian media because there are 100,000s Maharaj Jis. The only people who use it do so because it sounds like he was born into his role rather than taking it. So take the sentence out and add "Balyogeshwar" which is in the lead to - "Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji but was frequently called "Balyogeshwar" by the Indian media (roughly "born saint" or "born lord of Yogis") on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness.[13][14][15][16][17] " Momento (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the sentences around it a little closer now, I don't see where it says that he was given that name before his Dad died, but the language of it isn't the best. Are you saying he was never called that? I think I saw another article (Possibly Time, but I'd have to double-check if needed) that also referred to him by that name. Do we really need to just fix the refs and correct some grammar in that paragraph without deleting any info? When you say take that sentence out and add Baly, Baly is already in that sentence, so I'm not following that. Also, isn't being the SatGuru a very important thing? I thought there could be only one, why would we want to scrap that then? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No you don't see it because it isn't there. It is in the chronology. The article says he was given this bogus title before the article says his father died. Momento (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that Momento is right here, and for an uncontentious issue like this, Cagan is probably the best source. The first time I can find a mention of the new title is on July 1, 1966 (PiP p85). When Prem Rawat addressed his late father's followers they shouted Bolie Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai! which was a greeting of jubilation called out in the presence of Shri Maharaji (his father). He was never addressed like that before. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, that's what I meant when I said the language wasn't the best. It seems to me that if we shift around the order of the sentences a little bit we can put chronology back into order quite easily without losing any text. Any objections to that? FYI, Nov 27, 1972 issue of Time magazine (here's an online link [8]) has an article that refers to him by this name, I think that's a better source, if we can avoid using Cagan, we should I think, as well, Time refers to him with the exact same name as in our article, Cagan's quote above is slightly different. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

TIME magazine is wrong. Scholars make it clear that "Sant Ji" (little saint) was a nick name not a title. "Balyogeshwar" was a name given by Indian media and never used by his followers. "Param Hans Satgurudev Maharaj" equals "Surpreme Soul True Guru Great King". The reality is that the title he received when he became the guru was "Guru Maharaj Ji" and was beefed up to "Satgurudev Maharaj" as in "Bolie Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai".Momento (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that might be the case, but as you know, it's not what's true, it's what we can source, and Time has already been through the whole "Is it a reliable source?" argument here, as you know. Can you lay out your exact edit you're suggesting here please, in a similar way to how I've done it below so that people don't have to flip back and forth and try and piece together what you're suggesting we use instead?-- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I propose -

At the age of three he began speaking at his father's meetings, and at six his father taught him the "techniques of Knowledge." His father died in 1966, and during the customary 13 days of mourning his mother and senior officials of the organization discussed the succession. Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Maharaj, were suggested as potential successors, but before either could be nominated, Prem addressed the crowd of mourners, reminding them that their master was immortal and was still among them.^[3] In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing.^[3] Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji, Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" and was called Balyogeshwar" by others (roughly "born saint" or "born lord of Yogis") on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness.^[3]^[4] ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] From that time, Rawat spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his father had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace. Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.^[8]^[9]^[10]Momento (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For complete accuracy we should change Satpal Maharaj to plain "Satpal" since he didn't claim that total until 1974.Momento (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple issues. "Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" This seems to be saying that he said, "From now on, call me Guru Maharaj Ji." Was this the case? Was it his personal choice of name? The latter part seems a bit clumsy also, but we can polish it up. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to re-write anymore than necessary. Just fix the chronology and explain "Balyogeshwar" with out compounding TIME's error.Momento (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

that seems ok, the only suggestion I would add might be to add (Satguru) after "Perfect Master" to align better with the sentence in the lede that refers to the Satguru, otherwise we don't have that word in the article and I think it's important to have that word. Does Satgurudev mean something else? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I've amended it to follow the lead.

Amended Proposal - At the age of three he began speaking at his father's meetings, and at six his father taught him the "techniques of Knowledge." His father died in 1966, and during the customary 13 days of mourning his mother and senior officials of the organization discussed the succession. Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Sat Pal, were suggested as potential successors, but before either could be nominated, Prem addressed the crowd of mourners, reminding them that their master was immortal and was still among them.^[3] In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their Satguru (English: Perfect Master), bowed to his feet and received his blessing.^[3] Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji, Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" and was called "Balyogeshwar" by others (roughly "born saint" or "born lord of Yogis") on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness.^[3]^[4] ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[11] From that time, Rawat spent his weekends and school holidays travelling as his father had, addressing audiences on the subject of Knowledge and inner peace. Because of his youth, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.^[8]^[9]^[10]Momento (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to that change. I would say if no one raises any issues, maybe go ahead and make that change in the morning? (just in case someone needs some time to check in, and it avoids anyone claiming you rushed it through). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento added the material in question.[9] I'm not sure why, two years later, it is now described by the same editor as an error. As for sources, there are plenty available.[10] For example, Time magazine says: He is called Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj—hardly a name likely to become a household word.[11] All we need to do is move the sentence back to its position after the father's death. Will Beback talk 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you go back to the beginning of this discussion you'll see I wrote that the "really obvious error" was that "Prem Rawat was NOT given the title "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" BEFORE his father died". And if you'll check the edit I made that YOU provided I correctly inserted the sentence AFTER his father had died. Is that clear now?Momento (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So then all we need to do to fix the "error" is move the sentence. Will Beback talk 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That would fix the "really obvious error" chronological error but create another one. The "Balyogeshwar" sentence would clash with the far more important and indisputable sentence "Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji, Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji", Since the "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" sources amount to a dozen with two being from Bob Larson and one claiming he was given the name at birth versus "Guru Maharaj JI" with 3200 hits, the obvious thing would be to add "Balyogeshwar" (since it is in the lead) to the "Guru Maharaj Ji" sentence as I proposed above i.e. "Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji, Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" and was called "Balyogeshwar" by others (roughly "born saint" or "born lord of Yogis") on account of his youth and spiritual precociousness.^[3]^[4] ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[12]"Momento (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree to my proposal above and remove the "very obvious error" and integrate the Balyogeshwar info the existing "Guru Maharaj Ji" sentence.Momento (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All we need to do is move the existing sentence after the death of the father. The long title is verifiable from highly reliable sources. Will Beback talk 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do that. Otherwise we should take it out because it is unsourced.Momento (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I moved it added the Time citation. Will Beback talk 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually none of the sources say he was "given the title" Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj".Momento (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And the other sources you provided give a variety a names and titles.Momento (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point about being "given" the title. Titles are inherited, bestowed (given), or assumed (taken). Will Beback talk 00:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

They don't don't mention "title" at all. In fact TIME thinks it's a name "He is called Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj—hardly a name likely to become a household word".

And we know that's wrong.Momento (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Time doesn't say it's a name. They might also say that someone is called the "Queen of England", but that doesn't mean it's a name either . People can be called by their title. Will Beback talk 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In the same sentence TIME refers to "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" they refer to it as "hardly a name likely to become a household word". They're wrong. It's unsourced. The article sentence should be removed.Momento (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you now claiming it's a name? And this is what he was called? I'm afraid there are only 3,000 hits for that idea versus 2.5 million for "Guru Maharaj Ji", 520,000 for Maharaji, and even Prem Rawat gets 500,000. I don't think you can justify including such a minority view.Momento (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything. Time says he was called "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj", and that's what we report. Since much of the events in this article occurred before the Internet became popular, Google hits are not very helpful for deciding how to decide what to include. Let's rely on reliable sources instead. Will Beback talk 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, TIME magazine says it is a "name" that is hardly likely to become a household word". And that is completely wrong. And we don't report everything that's sourced, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship". And it's too late to dismiss Google hits when you used Google to suggest "The long title is verifiable from highly reliable sources". "Balyogeshwar" appears in the lead and has many more sources than "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". Malefique has already agreed on my proposal and your sentence is contradicted by it's sources and yet you have continued to insert it. Momento (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While it doesn't strike me as a vital part of the article, it seems to me on the balance of the best sources, that Momento, as supported by Maelefique, is most likely correct. This great mouthful of words was never given to him at the same time by anyone, nor chosen by him, and never constituted his name as such. The tone of the Time article seems rather light-hearted, and I think they were probably using the word "name" loosely, never imagining it would create such turmoil nearly 40 years later. Rumiton (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Since three out of four commenting editors agreed with my original proposal and the sources do not support the alternative, I have made the edit.Momento (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine is a better source than many which have been proposed for use recently, and there a several others which also reference the sobriquet. Will Beback talk 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not better if it's wrong and it's not a sobriquet. Sant Ji is a sobriquet, Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj is a made up title like "Biggest bestest daddy in the universe" that was used by a tiny number of people. Why don't you be an impartial admin and remove PatW's gross violation of BLP policy - Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page- Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject - External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs(and that means including external links on any BLP page), and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. An admin is being derelict in their duty if they don't follow Wiki policy impartially.Momento (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to whom is it wrong? What evidence do we have that it was made-up?

As for being an admin, admins aren't supposed to use administrative tools on articles in which they're involved. Here, I'm just an editor. But I can say that it's best to keep a thread focused on a topic. Will Beback talk 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to 99.9% of reliable sources who say that Rawat's name is Prem Pal Singh Rawat. It TIME was right they would have said "Prem Pal Singh Rawat - hardly a name likely to become a household word". As for made up, the Queen of England is a title that can be correctly applied to a succession of people; Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj is unique to Rawat, made up for the occasion. A Google search shows a handful of hits that refer back to Wikipedia, TIME and critics who like to use it because it is so silly. On the subject of names the article says - "Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Maharaj, were suggested as potential successors". Satpal was Satpal Rawat when that occurred. Do you think I can change it without you objecting? And I'm not asking for you to use your admin tools, just support the agreement we all made that there would only be two external links.Momento (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - are you saying that Time magazine made up the title out of thin air for the article? Do you have any evidnce for this astonishing claim? Will Beback talk 21:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Read it again.Momento (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify - do you think the title is "made up", and if so who made it up? Will Beback talk 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think some excited devotee made it up. Blending "Balyogeshwar" used by the Indian media to differentiate Rawat from all the other 'Guru Maharaj Jis", "Param Hans" from his father, "Satgurudev Shri" a common appellation, "Sant Ji" what premies called Rawat before hie became the guru, and "Maharaj Ji" what Rawat calls himself. Momento (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But there's no evidence for that, is there? Who made up "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "Maharaji"? I'd guess those were used by devotees as well. But we don't know. Out speculation is not a sufficient reason to decide that otherwise reliable are suddenly unreliable. Will Beback talk 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct we don't know where those titles came from but we do know for absolute certain that Rawat chose "Guru Maharaj Ji" and then dropped that for "Maharaji". And we know for absolute certain that Rawat's name isn't "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" and there's no evidence that he ever called himself that or used the phrase.Momento (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that he used that title for himself. The assertion is that others have called him that. And FWIW< I thought that when the subject referred in his speeches to "Guru Maharaj Ji" he was talking about his father. When did he use that title to refer to himself? Will Beback talk 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You must try to get out of the habit of thinking that every statement I make is in response to someone claiming something. When I said "there's no evidence that he ever called himself that or used the phrase" I said it to inform you not rebut some silent question. When you say "When did he use that title to refer to himself?", I'm genuinely surprised and think I have to explain everything to you in the simplest terms. Anyway we know that the premies called him "Sant Ji" whilst his father was alive. And we know they starting calling him "Guru Maharaj JI" when he took over from his father. And we know that he dropped the "Guru" in the 80's and started to be called "Maharaji", so there's not much room for him to be called anything else.Momento (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the archive and I see that the text was the outcome of an extensive RFC. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 40#Balyogeshwar RfC. There is no new evidence since then. Therefore I'm going to restore the material. Will Beback talk 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar is fine. But saying he was called "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" is not and there's nothing RfC to support it. As you said "In the sources that refer to him as "Balyogeshwar" it is used the sole designation". Will Beback talk 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Momento (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When the text was proposed you said "That looks good" and then you added it to the article. Will Beback talk 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well the recent research I've done has shown me the error of my ways. "Balyogeshwar: is good, "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" is not.Momento (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OH? What is the recent research? What new evidence do we have that we didn't have in 2009? Will Beback talk 03:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That neither Geaves or Mangalwadi use "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" and TIME thinks it's a name. and the RfC doesn't support it.Momento (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Geaves and Mangalwadi probably didn't use it in 2009 either. Time magazine is a relisble source. Other sources use it as well. It was an outcome of the RFC, and extensive discussion. Will Beback talk 04:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was about putting Balyogeshwar in the lede, I don't see anything about "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" being in the lead, it was a side issue.Momento (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Addition, etc

I did a search for that, the only time those words occur on this page are when you just said them. So if you want to discuss it could you please just paste it again if you know where it is? Also, to all your other points, still no. Briefly:

The video Lord_of_the_universe has a reporter asking him if he is god, he doesn't say no. Downton also refers to the fact that many people believed he was god. There was much controversy about it, as I'm sure you know. The fact that it's also someone else's plank doesn't surprise me. That's not where I got it.
ok, He may not have said "hey, publish this book for me" but it must be nice to be a position where your friends can do that for you and it comes out looking so beneficial, don't you think?
The gold toilet seat? nope, learned about that right here, I believe Sylvie said she worked on something to do with that plane if I recall correctly. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken Sylvie)
If they were public speeches not given specifically for the prison (as we both seem to think), then PR doesn't really have much involvement with the program, unlike the TPRF which is distributing them and running the program, again, good for TPRF info more than PR info
The "two friends: minds and heart" is not something he spoke, I even gave you a specific second to look at (I spend an hour looking at all this, and you can't even look at a single second I specifically give to you??) It's the menu off of some DVD on the TV behind the person talking. You can read more of the chapter headings as well I think
as I already said, I watched it, all of it, twice, some parts more

And I just want to say that I'm not saying I've never seen an anti-Rawat site (although I'm not sure every site you would classify as anti-Rawat would get the same rating from me), that would be silly. I'm willing to bet you've been on some anti-Rawat sites yourself, so what? I've seen many pieces of info about Rawat, and weighed them all accordingly. I've read many articles and books, I own a copy of Downton and LOTU, and Soul Rush, and I have access to some pretty spectacular university libraries. You don't get a degree in History without being able to do a little research on your own. Not to read information on both sides of the discussion would imo be far worse for NPOV. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments on your points

there wasn't any controversy amongst Rawat's followers. He was absolutely clear -1970 "receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart". 1971 - What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk. 1971 - People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.
The Spanish language version of "Peace is Possible" was published by Bajo el Alma Publishing Company, an independent company.
I've got gold plated speaker leads but a porcelain toilet.
Doesn't have involvement with the program? Really? He founds the organisation that runs the program (it even bears his name), he creates the program, he provides the material they use in the program, he gives the speeches that are the core of the materials, the materials are physically produced by an organisation he founded and he goes to the prison that employs the program to talk live to the prisoners who invite him. The only thing he hasn't done in this process is building the jail that holds it. Ergo no Prem Rawat, no program.Momento (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few observations.

There may not have been any controversy for you, but according to Time magazine in 1972 there was, "the 17-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji is worshiped as the "Lord of the Universe" by devotees* of the Divine Light Mission in many countries round the world"
We've covered this before, and you were there. All they did was translate it. Please don't rehash old arguments if there's nothing new to add
So do I, and it's equally irrelevant here
Really. The clippings say TPRF created the program, not him. They are using generic public speeches he made (according to Rumiton), he didn't make those speeches on tape for the prisoners specifically. There is nowhere that I saw that said those speeches were at the core of the program, do you have additional info on that? And by your analogy, everything Microsoft does is directly attributable to Bill Gates because he founded the company?
None of this makes it any more notable, still have no sources

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Lord of the Universe" is not "God", so that source is irrelevant. Especially when compared to Rawat's crystal clear reply to John Wood of the Boston Globe Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973 - Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: "No. My Knowledge is God". But, hey, believe what you like.
"Publlshed by friends "doesn't exclude PIP as a source. Just as "Written by friends" doesn't exclude material as a source.
Really. You need to read the article again. It says "the highly successful peace education program founded by Prem Rawat and in place at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail" and "Rawat founded the Peace Education program in 2007".
And, UTSA publications and the largest Spanish language TV network in the US aren't sources? Time for outside opinion. WP:RSN [12]Momento (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else you want to know about "Two friends, mind and heart" but that is a fair summary of Prem Rawat's approach to inner peace. It appears to be the title of one of the modules taught during the prison program, based on his videos. Rumiton (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, if the section is not searchable for some reason, here it is again.

Suggested additon to the article

In 2007, Rawat founded the Peace Education Program to help prison inmates develop positive life skills and self-esteem by finding personal peace. The program focuses on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes such as hope, inner strength, compassion, kindness and self-worth. The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail since its inception, and in January 2012 has reached more than 1,000 men. According to Michael Gilbert, associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Texas at San Antonio; "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed by the warden, chief of security and others in our local Dominguez prison, and to their knowledge, only three or four participants have returned to confinement. Something very constructive appears to be happening, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has taken notice."[10] Rumiton (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As before, this seems to represent undue weight for something sourced to a press release. A single sentence, or partial sentence, would be more appropriate given the lack of coverage. Will Beback talk

It's not a press release. It's a news item. A press release is material send to the media in the hope they will reproduce it. This, on the other hand, is entirely written by a University of Texas San Antonio employee in a UTSA publication from a UTSA point of view. And if that wasn't enough, the Peace Education Program was featured on Univision which has the largest audience of Spanish-language television viewers in the US, according to Nielsen ratings. So it has two impeccable sources. The addition you are suggesting Rumiton is perfectly correct. There is no reason it shouldn't be included in its entirety.Momento (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Will has a point there, if you look at the rest of the article we have paragraphs covering events where he was dealing with hundreds of thousands of people, talking to continental congresses, and we're waving around numbers like 1.2 million people, etc. On the other hand, this program (consisting of about 1000 people), while it may be helpful to them, seems a very small thing in comparison, and if it deserves a mention, I think it would need to be pared down from that text you have presented. One suggestion might be slightly expanding the TPRF section to touch on some more of the things they are doing now, as I said above, they seem to be more active than they used to be, and we might want to include more info on them now. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we agree the sources are excellent, and we are not calling this a press release anymore? And we have also accepted that the program is a result of his personal effort? Just checking on our progress so far before we talk about weight. Rumiton (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good thing to check. I'm waiting to see what Momento's RSN venture produces for results before I give too much more thought to that press release. I don't agree the sources are excellent, but it's possible they're ruled "good enough", we'll see. The press release, rightly or wrongly, seems to indicate that he personally set up the program, but again, that's just one press release out there in the world, not a lot of weight there, and there's no indication how much effort he puts into it now that it's been set up. But the visit to the prison would seem to indicate he's at least aware of it, so that's a good start. so to sum up, I'm not overly convinced of anything yet, but I'm interested to see what RSN says, maybe they'll have some explanation that changes my mind, wouldn't be the first time. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So I'm just curious. If a public statement by a professor at a major university, backed up the news team of America's largest Spanish language broadcaster, have to go to a Wikipedia noticeboard where they might possibly be ruled "good enough", what would you consider an excellent source? Hhmm?(Please don't give me the porn thing again, it told me nothing.) Rumiton (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, you should not have chimed in on that noticeboard. Nobody here did that when you looked externally a couple of weeks ago. Apart from just importing the same arguments we are enduring here, it means that another editor there will look at it and think a neutral editor is answering and therefore write nothing. That was very poor etiquette and I suggested you delete it right away. Rumiton (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: etiquette, hardly the same since Momento's question has serious "factual" problems imo, unlike mine, which was phrased in the most neutral way possible to avoid any bias. However, if you can show me the etiquette page that says that's not the right thing to do, please link it, I will delete immediately. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a statement by a professor, it's a press release put out by the media relations department. Show it to me in a national newspaper, or a magazine, or even a large local newspaper, there are, as you know, thousands of examples, but those are 3 I would not have a problem with. Oh, Time magazine, I would never have a problem with that, unlike some pro-Rawat editors I recall. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the point, you think they are factual problems, I don't. The UTSA article quotes a named professor, Christi Fish just released the information on behalf of the university. But no matter how many times you are told that, you keep saying it. The appeal to RSN is for neutral people to look at the sources, not just to hear more of the same from you. And stop sniping. Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer, which will then be used here to justify his actions. Hardly helpful for anyone as you know that would only lead to more arguing. Whereas, if it comes back with an answer that RSN likes the source now I guess I would just have to accept the source as ok, so really, it works out better this way! pew pew. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well now that an independent editor has written "This seems to be a reliable source for the quote that is being discussed in the article's Talk page." perhaps you 'd like to be true to your word "accept the source as ok" and we'll put it in.Momento (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Press releases are often reliable sources for the quotations included. That was never the issue. Will Beback talk 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Quotations included"? What are you talking about? Do you think a university cannot do its own research and verify what they say and put their reputation behind? Rumiton (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all, I think we are definitely making progress. Now regarding weight, the reliable source tells us that the Peace Education Program which he founded in 2007 is now operating in 25 prisons in 10 countries. That is pretty weighty, even compared to the overblown stuff from the 70's. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight is determined by coverage in outside sources, not by claims. Will Beback talk 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We have two reliable outside sources. What are these "claims" you refer to? Rumiton (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento, I would have preferred to see a little more response from RSN, but as a source,I'll accept it for what it says. However, and I haven't strayed from this point at all so I don't know why you're ignoring it, that's only one of the challenges with this suggested addition. If we can get past all the challenges, then we can look at putting it in (even the editor at RSN added a comment on the end of his opinion to that effect).

The 70's as a whole are extremely important to our view of Rawat, I hardly think they can be overblown, could we just stick to the current discussion instead of taking shots at the article too? Everyone gets it, various editors here have different opinions. the way your suggested text looks now, it still seems like too much text to add for this article, I don't think you can argue that it's more important than the Peace Bomb, but you want to give it a lot more coverage. Also, I'm ok with quoting numbers for the San Dominguez jail, I'm not thrilled about the idea that they are now a good enough sources for jails in other countries. Do they seem like a good enough source for that to you? Is there some TPRF promo literature we could use that backs that up too? (that would not be self-serving etc I don't think). Here is my suggestion, adding onto what we have for the TPRF already,

Current: In 2001, Rawat founded The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas.

Proposed:In 2001, Rawat founded The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas. In 2007 they also started a peace education program for inmates, it operates at 25 prisons across 10 countries as of 2011, and has demonstrated an impressive drop in recidivism among participants, three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas.

Adding in the cites needed as well of course. Also, we should wikilink "recidivism" since we have an article on it, and I think it's important to know. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks more appropriate than previous proposals. Will Beback talk

The 70's may be important but this is current and therefore important. Your paraphrase needs more work and more words.Momento (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The 70's *may* be important?? Currently, I'm drinking coffee; because it's current doesn't make it important. However, it doesn't seem like a bad thing to add to the article in general, but without undue weight, such as the original suggestion above. I think my phrasing covers all the key points and keeps the word count to a concise minimum. Why do you think it needs more words? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the coffee isn't current it's not there and therefore no smell, no taste, no effect.Momento (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1. It isn't the jail that refers to the international implementation of the PEP, it's the reliable source, which is the university! That's all we need, though TPRF has other info as well if we need to go further. The regularity of your misunderstandings of the facts involved in this editing process (and always in a way that supports your POV) is starting to undermine my assumption of your good faith. You are wasting the time of editors. Unless you take a more sincere approach to this work I will report you.

2. Recidivism needs to be expressed in simpler words, not linked. I doubt if one person in ten knows what it means, and this looks like an attempt to obscure the most important result of the program (your POV again). "Reoffenders" would work better. Also we need to give the time (5 years) that the program has been running for the rate to have any meaning.

3. You are still trying (desperately?) to minimise Prem Rawat's role in this program. The university says, "Rawat founded the Peace Education program in 2007" not TPRF founded it. That's what this article needs to say. Otherwise we would be misquoting the reliable source.

4. RSN isn't a vote. When one editor gives an opinion, those who agree tend to leave it alone. Only dissidents add anything else.

5. I agree there is a problem with "overshadowing." Adding enough meat to this paragraph to do it justice tends to draw attention away from the other work he has done this century, like speaking at 36 events and reaching a total of over 800,000 people, and an additional 2.25 million by satellite broadcasts in 2007, which we dismiss very shortly. But all we can do is add more to this as the info comes in, not reduce the other good stuff we have.

6. The suggestion for an addition to the article I made above was carefully thought out to include what the reader needs to know without creating any false impressions, which your suggestion would do. Rumiton (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, weight is determined by amount of coverage in independent secondary sources. See WP:WEIGHT. It is not determined by recentness, or by volume of material in primary or first-party sources. Issues which have received minimal coverage should get minimal weight, while items which have received extensive coverage should receive proportionately greater weight. Will Beback talk 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you show me where it says "weight is determined by the amount of coverage in independent secondary sources".Momento (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it your own opinion that the university has accurate statistics on jails in foreign countries on different continents that it didn't receive from TPRF? Or are you saying that the university is actually running the program with TPRF in other countries?
Maybe we can teach the readers something too, I'd like them to know the correct word *and* that it's a good thing, not just one of those two things, but I'm not glued to it, although removing the correct term reduces the article, but that's just imo. It's the opposite of obscuring, I'm clarifying, just by hovering your mouse over it you get the full definition of the word, and can link to an entire article for a full understanding, but again, I'm ok if you want to simply replace the word with "re-offenders" instead, seems far less impressive though.
The TPRF source said it was done through them, it's in a section about the TPRF (I suppose we could move it) and it's in an article *solely* dedicated to Prem Rawat, but again, I'm ok with changing the "they" to "he" if that makes it better for you.
uhh...ok? Not sure what that's supposed to mean...but it doesn't seem like a problem either...
we have many many sources for earlier events in his life, which don't seem to make it into this article, either we apply the same weight policy to all sources and events, or we don't, I think that's the struggle here.
I don't necessarily agree, but don't have a big problem with most of what you suggest here either

So you'd prefer the sentence read as:

In 2007 he also started a peace education program for inmates, it operates at 25 prisons across 10 countries as of 2011, and has demonstrated an extremely low rate of re-offenders among participants, three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas.

?

And on a separate note, in the last month, you've accused me of being a single purpose account (verifiably wrong). Hanging out on Anti-Rawat websites for info (wrong again, and explained here fully), and being fed info from ex-premies (also wrong), yo've sent me to the wrong links at least 3 times, and *I'm* the one not acting in good faith? *I'm* the one wasting time here? Oh, and I almost forgot, you compared me to with a perpetrator of the Holocaust too, and you're saying that up until now you've considered me acting in good faith? That's ridiculous, report me now, or get off the pot already. FYI, the pronoun "they" referred to the university (we were discussing *their* press release, not the prison's!), yet again *you* have your facts wrong. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the university is a reliable source for the information I quoted in my suggested addition paragraph. I don't know where they got it and it doesn't matter. They stand by the truth of what they wrote.

By hovering your mouse over it you get a full definition? You have a different mouse to mine. I have to click on the word and go to a new page. But I don't much care about this word, I just believe in writing with the greatest simplicity where possible.

"He" is what the source said.

I was referring to your complaint that there was only one respondent in the RSN. That is more often than not the case.

It seems to me that his earlier periods are well enough described. The last few years are not.

I accept that you meant the university when you said They, but it didn't read that way. And yes, They (or rather their criminology department) are an impeccable source for this information. Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So yes or no, are you happy with the revised sentence I proposed above? I think you're doing PR a dis-service by removing the recidivism link though, if you read that article (on recidivism), you'll see that the standard rate for recidivism in the US is 600 out of a thousand! That statistic has no business in this article directly, but by linking that word, we get to present that info to the reader as well, so he/she can think, "wow, that's a big difference!". I'm not going to argue for it's inclusion anymore so, if you think we should leave it out, I can live with it out, just not happily. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

One sentence is appropriate weight, I would say. Maelefique's effort is pretty close. However, the "extremely low rate of re-offenders" and "three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas" seem a bit of a reach, looking at the UTSA source ("to their knowledge, only three or four participants have returned to confinement"). I think we can safely say that results to date have been promising, but a number like 3 or 4 per 1,000 would need to have additional data (i.e. over which time period, what kinds of offences, what kind of confinement is meant -- solitary confinement or imprisonment generally?) to make sense. Slightly copy-edited: In 2007 he also started a peace education program for prison inmates, which as of 2011 operated at 25 prisons in 10 countries and has demonstrated promising results to date, according to the University of Texas at San Antonio. --J N 466 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How about brief coverage in the 2000s but more details in the "teaching" section?Momento (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Momento! Long time no see. --J N 466 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Nearly two years of banning. It's hard to believe anyone could be so bad! Nice to hear from you.Momento (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466, there was additional corroboration in the TPRF video that Rumiton initially listed as a link, which when I suggested we include as a source, he balked at. It said pretty much the same thing, 3-4 re-offenders out of 700-1000 that have been through the program, since it's inception at that prison. I think those numbers could be correct (correct in the sense that all sources seem to agree on those numbers), at least in the case of the one prison we're discussing. And if we accept that as accurate, according to our article on recidivism, ohh, err, I mean, re-offenders, that's an extremely low number, and should probably get a nod. Unrelatedly, no Momento, it's not hard to believe at all, there was a tremendous amount of disruption, and a large sigh of relief when it stopped. But that was then, this is now and I'm happy to leave it that way (we all know how I feel about revisionism). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes M, the same disruption I'm causing now. Correcting the chronology error in the 60s against resistance and WB's mis-information and having to get outside assistance to get you to understand that UTSA and Univision are acceptable sources. I'll make a list on my talk page.Momento (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento, I don't think your idea about splitting it up works out too well, as the teaching section really has more to do with his techniques/methods/message, is he teaching a different message here? It's still inner peace isn't it? So I don't think that works. Plus, with the exception of a speech to the prison, my understanding is, they're using the Words of Peace videos in some capacity for the inmates, I think it's hard to argue he custom tailored those for this application. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that the extraordinary results PEP is getting are included, that "the recidivist rate of prisoners attending the course has dropped from about 50% to less than 1%" not just "promising" results.Momento (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought so too, but then Rumiton disagreed with "Recidivism" completely and JN didn't like the stats...I don't know if you noticed, but it's hard to win around here :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's ignore Rumiton and JN since we're getting on so well. The stats don't have to be any more detailed or official than the source provides. The reason the PEP has made the news is because of it's incredible success. In the news program a prison officer says "Of more than 700 offenders who have gone through the program, only 3 have returned". The transcript says "This is a really low number, said the official. According to Dept. of Justice statistics the usual return rate is more than 50%." There's more info the program here [13] and an interview.Momento (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignore Rumiton? What an appalling idea. It would mean the end of the world. Anyway, I do agree with Jayen that it would be nice to have some more mathematical data, but as Momento said, what we do have is really quite a bit more than "promising." You have persuaded me that recidivism carries some useful sub-text, so OK. How about: In 2007 Prem Rawat began a peace education program for prison inmates, and in 2012 it is operating at 25 prisons in 10 countries. The program has been offered at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail since its inception, and in January 2012 has reached more than 1,000 men, with an extremely low recidivism rate of only 3 or 4.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we start nailing this new material down I propose we rename the section "1983 -2000s" and make it "1980 - 2000". This allows "2000- Present" which encompasses the founding of TPRF and gives us a bit more leeway to cover PEP.Momento (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than try to explain it here I've made the change I 'm suggesting to the article and reverted back to the current situation so you can see how it would work.Momento (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Made the temporary change and then reverted. Renaming sections "1974-1979" and "1980 - 2000" and "2000- Present" makes the sections more equal in size and allows us to chop 17 years from the last section.Momento (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Aside from artificially inflating your edit count (which I don't really care about), we have had major problems in the past with editors saying they are doing one thing, and then finding out later that they actually did 3 things, etc. I do not want to have to go back and read the entire article every time someone suggests a possible edit to make sure they are only editing what they say they are and not changing anything else, accidentally or otherwise. Also, there is no reason to touch the article if you are not making an edit that has been agreed upon, Wikipedia provides several methods for you to show the changes you want to make without touching the article. If you feel it's too complicated to show here in talk, then please create a sandbox article, you can easily provide a link here from your own sandbox copy of the article if you need to. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think ignoring other editors with opinions would work (I'm going to assume you were kidding anyway). Rumiton, aside from being 20% longer, what does your version add that makes it any better? I don't see where you've added anything that necessitates a 20% increase in the amount of words used to say the same thing. It was you who said above that we should keep the text simple and to the point ("I just believe in writing with the greatest simplicity where possible").-- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring other editors is certainly a bad thing. Simplicity does not necessarily mean brevity, but I think I can get it to look better. The main point I wanted included is the fact that the Dominguez program has been running for 5 years. Without that info the "rate" of recidivism is meaningless. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How about:

In 2007 Prem Rawat began a peace education program for inmates, and in 2012 it is operating at 25 prisons in 10 countries. In 5 years at San Antonio's Dominguez State Jail it has reached more than 1,000 men, with an extremely low recidivism rate of only 3 or 4.

I am a little uncomfortable with just inmates rather than prison inmates as my dictionary includes houses, hospitals and "other institutions" as places where there are inmates, but I guess the word prison that follows removes any ambiguity. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And I just learned that recidivism is from Latin meaning "back I fall." Quite a poignant word. I am warming to it. Rumiton (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're liking that word, I'm a fan of it too, was surprised when you objected to it. I agree with you above, the word prison removes the ambiguity. I think the rate speaks for itself, 3-4 out of a 1000, is 3-4 out of a thousand, there's no indication that it was 1000 ppl that just took the program yesterday, in fact just the opposite. However, if you really think it needs changing to reflect that:

In 2007 he also started a peace education program for inmates, it operates at 25 prisons across 10 countries as of 2012, and has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants, three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas over the past 5 years.

Does that work for you? it's still 50% less text than your suggestion adds, and I think it covers everything in probably too much detail. Also, on a sidenote, while re-reading that university press release it says "The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at the Dominguez unit since 2007. During that time, it has reached more than 1,000 men", which could easily mean it's only reached a 1000 men across all 25 prisons. I don't think that's what it means, and the tprf video link you provided before gives the same statistic (I think) without the ambiguity, so again, I would suggest we cite that as well. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The content is not bad, but the syntax is suffering a bit. The first comma should be a period, but that would make it too jerky, and (perhaps it's a personal thing) I don't much like "as of". It's a strange Americanism, like falling "off of" the wagon. How about: In 2007 he also started a peace education program for inmates which now (2012) operates at 25 prisons across 10 countries. The program has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants; three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas over the past 5 years. Yes? Rumiton (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Two issues, your revision will be wrong next year, as "now" won't be 2012, so we would have to unnecessarily edit that sentence next year so it doesn't look funny. Can you suggest another way? Possibly "...for inmates, which in 2012 operates..."? Also, instead of "the program has demonstrated" I think we can use "it has demonstrated" just fine, there is no possibility that the pronoun can be seen as vague. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, please see WP:ASOF apparently Wikipedia has a stance on the use of that term, which, as I read it, is how I phrased it originally. I expect the number of prisons to change. Given that, I think I would prefer we go back to how that part of the sentence was phrased, containing the "as of". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see it's a tag, and a potentially useful one, providing the maintenance gets done. I accept it. Rumiton (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) In fact, rather than seeing it as just another drop in the choking tide of global Californiarisation, I will begin using it myself. As of now. Rumiton (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a sandbox as per M showing new section breaks but can't get it off the editing page. You'll have to press preview or show me how to complete it [14].Momento (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento, hitting "save" on your sandbox page seems to work...here's the link: User:Momento/sandbox, but I think that we've spent so much time on this PEP program, that I'd like to finish dealing with that first, and we can come back to your poposed chronology changes, unless there's some time-urgency I don't know about. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks M.Momento (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Addition, part 2

Current suggested sentence:

In 2007 he also started a peace education program for inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. It has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants; three or four out of a thousand in the case of Dominguez prison in Texas over the past 5 years. [cite1][cite2]

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Take 2 -" In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. It has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants at the Dominguez prison in Texas over the past 5 years; less than one percent return to jail compared to the state average of 50%." Point 1 - we have no evidence of the recidivism is down at other prisons. Point 2- the way I read it although 1000 have gone through PEP only 700 have left of which 3 or 4 have returned, so 3 or 4 out of 700. Point 3 - Have to include the normal rate to show the dramatic comparison. Momento (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this is still way too much weight for a claim made in a press release. How were these numbers arrived at? Was there a published study? If we're going to include these claims we need to attribute them to the source. Something like "According to a UTSA webpage, the program says it has..." But remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and I don't think we have sufficient sources to make this kind of assertion. Will Beback talk 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree this sentence is getting too long again. It's too long, it doesn't add anything more than my previous sentence added,

and we have no source for the state average for recidivism anyway. Regarding Momento's points,

What does recidivism at other prisons have to do with this? He's got a program, here are the results. Let the reader do what they want with that info, we already linked the recidivism article if they want more info
Did you watch the TPRF video sources Rumiton supplied? I think they have similar numbers
We do not have to include the normal rate, we already told the reader its an "extremely low rate", they can read further if they want more details

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The state average comes from the TV segment " According to Dept. of Justice statistics the usual return rate is more than 50%."

We have no source for your claim "It has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants". There are participants in 25 prisons, we only have figures for one.
I added 5 words that include "prison" (as per Rumiton}; clarifies that the "extremely low rate of recidivism" is for Texas participants not all participants, the only place be have info on; corrects 1000 participants to the 700 that have left jail.Momento (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who says that "According to Dept. of Justice statistics the usual return rate is more than 50%."? That statement is being made by an unnamed person. Further, the program is in Spanish, so we should avoid posting a translation as if it were the actual words of anyone. Will Beback talk 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Univision is the source and we can get an accurate third party translation as per WP:NOENG and Wiki Translators [15].Momento (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Univision isn't the source for that claim. If the reporter made the statement then we could say that Univision was responsible for it. If they interviewed someone who said that the moon is made of blue cheese it wouldn't be as if they were making that assertion themselves. We cna't base a factual assertion on an unattributed translation of what some unknown guy in a black shirt said when someone stuck a microphone in front of him. Will Beback talk 02:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We have plenty of material in this article where the source is newspaper or magazine where the author is unknown. Who's the source for "'In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries"?Momento (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And many translated sources.Momento (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The main problem isn't that it's translated, it's that it's an exceptional claim made by an unidentified person. The fact that it's also translated by yet another unknown person further complicates the matter. Will Beback talk 05:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing exceptional about it. It's a simple report on what happened in San Antonio.Momento (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"It has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism ..." That certainly sounds exceptional. Will Beback talk 06:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're only talking about the jail in San Antonio, I think you're right, 1000 ppl over 7 years isn't exceptional, or noteworthy, and I would then propose, based on weight, that we just scrap the whole sentence.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional or not, it is noteworthy because it has been noted by two reliable sources. We don't need to (in fact should not) add anything about average recidivism rates, as this would be original research. If we just stick with what the two sources say, we are doing fine. And we definitely can trust these sources to identify the people they are talking to, even if we can't know for ourselves who they are. That's what reliable sourcing is all about; we can rely on them to have done their homework. Rumiton (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition is unusable because the claim of recidivism isn't sourced to any legitimate scientific studies by scholars, or legitimate organizations such as the FBI and state prison systems in the U.S. Those are the types of entities that conduct such studies about prison recidivism. The numbers for the recidivism claim, as well as the number of programs and countries are sketchy at best. There definitely is no study that could possibly link Rawat's "prison program" to those sketchy recidivism results. There simply is no legitimate statistics on which to rely, to make this claim. This proposed edit is an exceptional claim (if there ever was one!) and ought to be scrapped. Also, there are too many proposals being placed on the page right now willy nilly. Please slow this process down now. The article has been stable for quite some time and adherents' current attempts to add minutiae without proper sourcing is not helping to keep it stable. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument about sourcing is over. RSN has declared that the University of Texas webpage and the Univision News Report are reliable sources for the suggested addition. WP:DEADHORSE applies. Re: Stability. Life goes on and articles need to grow to remain valid. Shouldn't be a problem. Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, I think RS/N only had an opinion on the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.169.136 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct here. The RS/N section heading was University of Texas at San Antonio and Univision Channel 41 "News of the Day". Both sources were discussed and appeared to be approved together. No comment has been made on the alleged extraordinariness of the content of the reports, so we should resume discussing what form the addition should take. Looking at the above attempts with their objections, we seem to be left with: In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. At the Dominguez Prison in Texas over the past 5 years it has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants. Good to go? Rumiton (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, is 174.1.169.136 you? Please sign. I need to know how breezy and rude I can be. Rumiton (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I really think the percentage of recidivists of less than 1% versus the norm of 50% should be included. I'm getting a translation done of the TV clip to see what it says.Momento (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an exceptional claim and will require an exceptional source. Will Beback talk 02:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with Rumiton's "In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. At the Dominguez Prison in Texas over the past 5 years it has demonstrated an extremely low rate of recidivism among participants. Momento (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. We can always upgrade it if a better source arises. Rumiton (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What's our source for the "extremely low rate of recidivism" claim? That's an exceptional claim. Will Beback talk 03:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't an exceptional claim -

It isn't a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources. It isn't surprising because meditation is known to be beneficial. It is a local matter of interest to the locals and reported by the local media but not important enough to stop the presses elsewhere. If the results can be regularly reproduced by others on a wide scale then it might be exceptional but then it will probably be published by other media.
It isn't a challenged claim.
It isn't a report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
It isn't a claim that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.

It is simply an interesting story that shows Rawat is active and having a beneficial effect on people's lives.Momento (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Lower rate of recidivism" might not be exceptional, but "extremely low rate of recidivism" is definitely exceptional. What "multiple mainstream sources" report this claim? Will Beback talk 06:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If we say "lower rate", then the question arises, lower than what? Can you suggest any other way of phrasing this that is true to the source without being exceptional? Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably lower than "normal". But this seems just like an anecdotal claim rather than a proven fact. What period of time does the claim cover? How were prisoners chosen? Recidivism rates vary by type of crime. The claim raises many questions. Will Beback talk 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to establish it as a fact if we attribute it to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice.Momento (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's still an exceptional claim. If Gilbert has published a study in a peer-reviewed journal then that'd be great. Where else has he made this assertion? Will Beback talk 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "peer reviewed, published study" to be included in Wikipedia. We have two reliable sources saying the same thing and an attributable expert. That's more than enough.Momento (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sources make this claim? Will Beback talk 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

UTSA Today- "Rawat founded the Peace Education program in 2007 to help inmates develop positive life skills and self-esteem by finding personal peace. Inmates meet twice each week at the jail to focus on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes such as hope, inner strength, compassion, kindness and self-worth. The program, which operates at 25 prisons in 10 countries, has been offered at the Dominguez unit since 2007. During that time, it has reached more than 1,000 men.

"The Prem Rawat Foundation's Inner Peace program has only one agenda -- to help incarcerated people find an inner personal peace that allows them to understand themselves, drop their defensive tough-guy masks and reach a point where they are okay with the genuine person inside who has feelings, emotions and fears," said Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice. "It is through this process of introspection that they begin to understand what they want from their lives and what they have to do rebuild their lives and repair relationships. "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed by the warden, chief of security and others in our local Dominguez prison, and to their knowledge, only three or four participants have returned to confinement. Something very constructive appears to be happening, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has taken notice."Momento (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's incredibly weak (and it's only one source, not two). The source is the Associate Director of Media Relations, who is quoting Professor Gilbert, who is citing jail officials who say that, so far as they know, only a few attendees have "returned to confinement". It doesn't say how many of the prisoners have actually been released. If it was only eight then the percentage is average. It doesn't say that they made any real effort to find out exactly how many had committed new crimes. And so on. It's just too wishy-washy for an exceptional claim. Will Beback talk 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I ask again: How can we phrase this to be true to what the sources are saying and not ring any "exceptional claim" alarms? I think it is clear that the prison officer, representing the prison, did say this, and it is very relevant to the subject. An attribution, as suggested by the RS/N, would seem to me the way to go. Rumiton (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can report the claim at all. Let's just stick with a short mention of the prison program and avoid making any inadequately sourced vague claims about its exceptional efficacy. Anything more would violate WP:V and WP:NPOV. Will Beback talk 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton, as long as we attribute his quote to Michael Gilbert. We can quote him. It's his opinion so it isn't an "exceptional claim". He is a credible named source. So I propose - "In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. According to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed by the warden, chief of security and others in our local Dominguez prison".[16]. It's reliable, verifiable and Gilbert is an independent expert so NPOV isn't an issue.Momento (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems very safe teritory to me, and in line with the recommendation in the Reputable Sources Noticeboard by WhatamIdoing to "Use it but attribute it." I don't think that necessarily implies an exact rendition; we can shorten it a little and paraphrase slightly. e.g. I don't think we need to include all the official noticers, we could just say "prison staff." Less clumsy that way. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

agree. Prison staff is good. I'm happy to go to ARB/COM on itMomento (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it needn't come to that. How is everyone else with this suggestion? Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As always, I'd need to see exactly what the sentence you're proposing is, before I can agree/disagree.I will say however, that the sentence above seems to ramble a little, and seems a bit like too much weight again. I think I may have been looking at the wrong thing too. Do you mean the paragraph that Momento is proposing above? Far too much weight, if so. As well, Will makes a very good point about the recidivism rate too, without knowing how many are released, the number doesn't really tell us anything, but it sounds very very good (I think that's a problem). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also an issue now, I went back to watch that video again, the domain has expired, the video is unavailable, Previous Video Link. Rumiton, do you have another link for this video? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose "In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for prison inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. According to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison".[17]. Can't be any less than that.Momento (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"In 2007 he started the Peace Education Program for inmates which, as of 2012, operates in 25 prisons across 10 countries. According to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison".[18]." is shorter without loss of context. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton did want "prison inmates" but if he's happy, I'm happy.Momento (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is closer than any of the proposals I've seen before, though it's still a bit long for material based on a press release. Will Beback talk 06:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me to the Wiki guideline which suggests the appropriate length for "material based on a press release". Because if it's just your opinion I'm afraid that doesn't count.Momento (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am OK without the "prison" as it comes later. I can live with this version. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great.Momento (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A mediator needs to be knowledgable

OK, so it's possible that I may, at some point in the near or distant future (or someone else) may need to help out here once more to offer a bit of dispute resolution at some point. To get a better understanding, could someone please provide me with some links to various sites, and resources that could be used to get info (I notice many of you cite books, but the only book I know I can access is Peace is Possible by Andrea Cagan. That'd be most helpful. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Steve. For a start, click on the links above and look for yourself. Allow a couple of hours. Thanks for showing an interest in helping. Rumiton (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also look at TPRF home page. There is a wealth of information there on Prem Rawat's and the organisation's current programs, but editors here have objected to using it on the grounds that it appears complimentary towards the subject. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They have also objected to it on the grounds that it's a primary source, and by the rules of Wikipedia it cannot be used for many details. Oh but ya, it's probably just because it's complimentary, we're pretty easy about ignoring rules here... wait, that doesn't seem right... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, this isn't a TPRF article. Prem Rawat's notability started long before that. For the 3rd (4th?) time, I'm suggesting that you may want to start a TPRF article to solve your issues here (regarding getting out the word on all of TPRF's good deeds). TPRF, if deemed notable enough to have an article, seems to be doing nothing but good things for people as far as I know. The Microsoft page isn't all about Bill Gates. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not just after official websites. Y'all cite books quite often. Are they available online? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you wish, I could send you at least one article by Ron Geaves, which I had to purchase. Most of Geaves's articles are available free.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to set you off again, but you are misquoting when you write: by the rules of Wikipedia it cannot be used for many details. You made that up. No article can be based solely on primary sources, that's true, but that is not the case with this article. Primary info has repeatedly been disallowed by editors here on the grounds only that it is "unduly self-serving." i.e. complimentary. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked into starting a TPRF article a year or two ago, but I couldn't find enough mentions in reliable sources. That is changing, but I don't think TPRF would pass the notability test just yet. Of course, I would like to be proved wrong. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not setting me off, but I didn't misquote, and I believe you misunderstood my meaning again. Allow me to rephrase so you can understand why you are wrong. Instead of "by the rules of Wikipedia it cannot be used for many details", please use the phrase "there are many places, particularly in a biography of a living person, where we are not allowed, by the rules of Wikipedia to insert details that only appear in primary sources". I don't think anyone currently working on this article is newbie enough to need me to spell that out, but just so you are clear, that is what I meant the first time, and I think that's what it says, albeit my revised version spells it out a little more plainly for you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Steve, most of my references that I own, I either tracked down through used book stores, found on amazon, or ebay (In the case of LOTU video), or have requested through inter-library loan via my university. Some segments of some books can be found online through google books, but many cannot. I don't know about where you are, but a lot of the reference books can be requested through the public libraries here as well, although they can take a while to get. And fair warning, a lot of this reading is pretty dry.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Steve is taking a short break from Wikipedia that is much needed for him and he asked me to keep an eye on this discussion. To make it easier for viewing editors and to resolve this dispute, can the both of you reiterate your point of view and what changes you would like to see to this article (if any)? Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In about 6 months, the archives from this talk page should bring you almost up to speed and then we can deal with the current issues. I don't think there's anything that can really be achieved with any uninvolved helper that doesn't have a strong grasp of the subject in general. Certainly discussions here tend to drag on much longer than on other articles so anyone offering help would have to be in it for the long haul I think. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When did this article go into mediation again? Was it requested by someone? Would someone be so kind as to explain the sudden reappearance of Steve, et al into the mix here? (And why, once again, is Steve bugging out like he's done before). Btw, the talk page archives for this and other Rawat-related articles (not to mention the two arbitration pages archives) are voluminous -- absolutely enormous -- so asking folks here to get a mediator up to speed isn't practical or feasible. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Steve just showed up and offered to help, no need to be rude to him. But you are probably right, I wouldn't like to be trying to understand all this. Regards a separate TPRF article, I might have been wrong (above). I am starting to get a steady stream of refs to the work they are doing, like this one. Might be time for another look, as I think Maelefique said. The two articles could be companion articles. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, so it appears I have a bit of explaining to do. Firstly, I suppose I didn't make it quite clear to Whenaxis as to what I wanted him to do for me. I asked him to keep an eye on this page. What I meant by that is if an all out brawl started while I was away, he could let me know. Which brings me to my second point. The reason I am here is that I've had this page (and talk page) watch listed ever since the Medcab in 2008. In regards to my temporary break, I'm taking a break because on-wiki work is interfering with several proposals I am working on presenting to the community, as well as preparing a presentation for Wikimania DC, so I'm (trying) to take a week to prepare those. No one requested mediation, no, but the page was quiet for some time and has flared up again. One thing that was the issue in 2008 (apart from being so damn young) is that I didn't understand much about the subject, as I didn't have access to many of the sources you all were referring to. That was my request here, to get information on where to find those (online, etc). It's likely that this article will need some form of dispute resolution at some point, and as Maelefique notes, it'd take some time for a new mediator to get up to speed. But I don't really mind. I've got plenty of other disputes to attend to. DRN is keeping me busy. Steve Public (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Steve - I'm trying to provide you (and others that have asked) with some very informative links to scanned publications but Momento deleted them. Can he do this? The followers of Prem Rawat - notably Momento and to a considerably less aggressive extent Rumiton apparently don't want you to see these publications and more, the critical online sites that are the only places you'll find them. It's simple as that.PatW (talk)

thought just occurred..if my memory serves me well...the last person who I sent these links to (who personally requested them) was Jimmy Wales - on his Talk Page - He seemed very grateful and polite!PatW (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links as per above requests

I've collapsed the discussion as it was becoming unproductive. If, in future, dispute resolution on this subject is required, I think as long as a user can scan a copy of the material that is being discussed, then that would be sufficient. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK but please note that the list of links I added are immediately enlightening as per Momento's proposed edit below. Notably the links to early DLM documents.PatW (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

In response to requests for old publications that are hard to find these days (though some can be found in libraries) here are links to various publications and articles and videos. You'll need to turn a blind eye to all sorts of terrible satire and salacious lies to find the reliable sources, but they're there!

PatW (talk)

Momento has taken the issue of whether this section is appropriate, even on a Talk page, to WP:BLPN because of the BLP issues associated with saying negative things about a BLP using inappropriate sources to back them up. See WP:BLPSPS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the linked webpages host copies of reliable sources. Rather than BLP, the more applicable policy might be WP:COPYVIO. Will Beback talk 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the linked pages host copies mostly of primary sources, not reliable sources. This is WP:COPYVIO to be sure, but the snide, nasty, unfact-checked and often demonstrably wrong commentary that is attached to most of them also violates BLP. I have no problem with the old documents themselves, they are part of the subject's often over-the-top Indian culture. His story is unique in that, alone of the Hindu/Sant Mat etc people who came to the West at the time, he has salvaged what is of value and produced something of international benefit. Rumiton (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure that Rawat's various organisations lawyers have tried to have these sites remove some material on grounds of breach of copyright- it would seem they've failed. So maybe there is NO violation. Of course editors with any intelligence and grasp of free speech will understand that the commentary on an anti-Prem Rawat website is likely to be derogatory. So what? Yes, there is opposition to Rawat and it has proved to be relevant to this article. Of course any reference to ex-premies in the article was vigorously opposed by Rawat supporters in the past and yet they've failed to have that removed. Contrary to Rumiton's assertions, much of what is written on the ex-premie websites seems perfectly intelligent and correct to me. In fact the ex-premie website is a mine of information about Rawat. And that includes Primary sources which are completely relevant and informative. With respect, Rumiton is entitled to his views about Rawat's achievements but they are not shared by everyone. This article has repeatedly been criticised for being too one-sided. I think editors should be informed of these other viewpoints. PatW (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, "These documents must be OK, they are on the internet." I would be surprised if Wikipedia's lawyers agree." Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Er... are you suggesting that the press articles to be found there are unreliable sources? I think Jimmy Wales had the right idea. He had a quick look at the links and commented that they appeared to be just primary sources etc. Then he had the good sense to take a further look and came back to me saying something like 'aha..my apologies... I see now that they are a mixed bunch thanks I'll take some time to read." So, of course there may be some unusable info there but there are also reliable sources. It seems all that you and Momento can do is insinuate that I am trying to back up some proposed derogatory edit with this. Nothing could be further from the truth.PatW (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there Pat - there is some good material on those sites - even though they are ex premie s - there is some decent content as well. - I love that song by that dark haired woman - show me devotion - lovely voice. However - spamming them to the talkpage when they have no real benefit or place in the BLP is a bit unnecessary. Youreallycan 21:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks like this thread is a direct response to the request placed in the previous thread: " To get a better understanding, could someone please provide me with some links to various sites, and resources that could be used to get info (I notice many of you cite books, but the only book I know I can access is Peace is Possible by Andrea Cagan. That'd be most helpful. " Will Beback talk 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Maelefique said to me (above) - "If you really want to help, find sources. I know, I for one, would like to look over all those newsletters that PR said had to be burned. Just a suggestion." Well I've provided some links.. Did you see that now Maelefique?PatW (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not sources though, at least not for wikipedia articles - they are sites that are against this subject of the article and you had no need to post them here like that for anything -you should have emailed them to whoever asked you for them -it would be better for the friendly atmosphere here if you deleted them from the talkpage. Youreallycan 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The links go to pages which host scores of sources, far too many to link to individually. There's no prohibition on linking to sites which are opposed to an article subject- the pages in question are not defamatory. I don't think this dispute really helps us get anywhere though. Will Beback talk 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They would all fit in an email though. No prohibition. I did add it to talkpage guidelines - but sadly after some time it was removed, "unreliable externals that are unable to be used in the article have no place on the talkpage and can be removed by other users". Youreallycan 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also - The section header (which should be altered, its soabboxing and opinionated, and just way too long) "Editors need to factor in this information to get a balanced picture" - no they don't - editors need WP:RS to use to add content to the article, thats all they need. Youreallycan 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That heading was intended to draw attention to the fact that Momento instantly deleted my thread. I consider that considerably unconducive "for the friendly atmosphere". My former wording was less. I've altered it again just for you. PatW (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right YRC. The links should have been sent to the requester's talk page. How would every one feel if I added a few dozens of my favourites?Momento (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should say that Momento - I just wrote back to YRC - Also when you say ""unreliable externals that are unable to be used in the article have no place on the talkpage and can be removed by other users" - Are you aware that a high proportion of the edit proposals put forward by Prem Rawat followers here are unreliable and found to be promotional material etc? Before you single me out fora dressing-down you might want to consider the fact that I have never deleted any of these links that were under discussion- and Momento, feel free to post your 'favorite' links that you feel editors might benefit from. I wouldn't feel the slightest need to delete them and I don't suppose anyone else would. PatW (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a more tranquil and colloquial project space if one side didn't add not WP:RS john is great citations and the other partisans didn't add john is rubbish unreliable externals. It likely makes people feel better but its of no benefit to the article at all and it is detrimental to the proper value of the biographical talkpage. Partisans post attacking externals on talkpages because they can get away with it because policy and guidelines are weak, and they enjoy it, not because they are of any benefit to the article, because they're not - a simple google search for ex premie would get these links that have been spammed here.

For balance to the attacking ex premie links above - [LIBELOUS LINK REMOVED BY SYLVIECYN] Sylviecyn (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - Youreallycan 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What has this to do with the published material of the cult on those websites? What you link to doesn't make Prem Rawat less a cult leader as acknowledged by Jimmy Wales Surdas (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the so-called 'harassment' goes both ways. And no I don't post for 'enjoyment' or because 'I can get away with it'. That is perhaps a rather simplistic view in this case.[User:PatW|PatW]] (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[Outdent] The above-linked website placed here by "Youreallycan" must be taken off this page NOW because it is libelous to named individuals who are not public people. Prem Rawat is a public person. Some of those named on that website are also editors here. Therefore, the website linked constitutes direct personal attacks on people who edit here, myself included. I don't understand why Prem Rawat adherents are escalating so much at this time. This article has been here for years now. Folks need to simmer down, have a cup of tea, breathe, and take these edits one at a time, slowly. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to be rushing to change so many things. Folks also need to remember that there are different standards of editor behavior required on this particular article due to past disputes. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 21 other links from en wikipedia to the one-reality.net - If you and other wikipedia editors are named in that external then you should rather not be editing this article as you clearly have a conflict of interest. It is User:PatW, someone that appears to be an opponent of the living subject of this WP:BLP that wants to add spam externals to attack sites - you should ask him about it. Youreallycan 16:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You sound confused. I suggest you brush up on your understanding of 'conflict of interest' before you throw around such accusations. PatW (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And I thought you sounded bemused. There is a lot of support on the project that conflicted users with real life active opposition or membership of opposing organizations should not even bother editing the talkpage. Anyway, you have shown me how f***ed up and partisan and battlefielding such as this biography is at wikipedia and I would rather eat snails than contribute to such a s***fest, and I don't like snails at all. Best of luck to you. - Youreallycan 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a little bit of a battle sometimes - sometimes we get along fine. I'd have been happy to discuss this with you here or elsewhere but it seems you'd rather not. Final question - if you consider it wrong to add 'attack' links why do you do it yourself? PatW (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who to ask, but I would appreciate it if someone here deleted this whole thread. The talk here has gotten very mean and off-topic. Knock it off already! :( Sylviecyn (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple change

IN the 1960's section Rawat's brother is referred to as "Satpal Maharaj", however, at the time he was "Satpal Rawat". So unless there is reason based objection in the next day or so I will change it.Momento (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the first of my reason-based objections - During their father Hans Ji Maharaj's lifetime (1960's) they all inherited the title 'Maharaj'. There are references to the Hans family - hardly ever is 'Rawat' mentioned - in fact I can find no reference from the time that refers to any of the family as Rawat. Satpal was almost always called 'Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji'. All the children of Shri Hans were variously referred to with or without their complete their titles ie. Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji Maharaj, Bhole Ji Maharaj, Shri Raja Ji Maharaj etc. So the titles Maharaj and Shri were dropped for brevity. In Divine Times Volume II, No. 23 - December 11, 1973 (Page 1-14) there is information about how Guru Maharaji acquired his name and reference to early childhood events as witnessed by old Mahatmas of his father - "They were extremely playful… Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji, Bhole Ji, Shri Raja Ji Maharaj ordered the mahatmas to bring bricks…"

Another reason I object is that there is well-known historic sibling rivalry between Prem Rawat and his eldest brother who now calls himself Satpal Maharaj. Both brothers have fought at court over who was the true inheritor of Divine Light Mission, founded by their father. Both claim to be the 'Perfect Master' and neither ever publicly refers to the other as even existing to this day. Edits that focus on obfuscating references or link to the brother could reasonably be seen as excessively pro-rawat. Note- The very existence of Satpal Maharaj, now a successful international Guru in his own right as you can see here http://www.manavdharam.org/SatpalJiMaharaj.aspx lends doubt to the credibility of Rawat's claims (which he has never disclaimed) to be the singular authority and disseminator of 'The Knowledge'PatW (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you think Navi Rawat gets her surname? If only Joshi were here.Momento (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend it's that simple. Prem Rawat and his other brother Raja Ji and all of their children no doubt go by the surname Rawat here in the West. That is their preference but even that was only adopted in the nineties. We are discussing the appropriate name for Prem Rawat's brother Satpal in the sixties not the surname of a seventies born US-born daughter 'Navi' of the westernised brother 'Raja Ji Rawat'. So I don't see this as an argument for referring to Satpal as Rawat. Satpal remains based in India and the Indian Guru culture thereof, he is not currently known as Rawat and never has been as far as I can see. He may of course use the name Rawat in some context but I have yet to see this. How do you think Satpal Maharaj would like to be referred to? Since there is a Wikipedia article of that name that links directly from the word you want to change it would seem appropriate to leave that. Now here's a question for you. The Rawat's all have a variety of names and titles that they use at various times. Why do you think it's better to call him 'Rawat' than say 'Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji' which is actually by far the most common 'sixties and seventies' name he was actually called in sources. What is your criteria for an appropriate name here? Can you show a single source that refers to him as Satpal Rawat? The name that reliable sources from the time refer to people as or what their birth certificate might say and which no doubt is speculation at this stage on your part? Finally do you propose to remove the link to 'Satpal Maharaj' from that particular reference to whatever name we end up with?PatW (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't change it if I didn't have an impeccable source. Let's see what others think.Momento (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.PatW (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To be exquisitely frank, I don't give the lower end of a large rodent's alimentary canal. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So what is this impeccable source? Rumiton - of course you don't care! And like Youreallycant you express this with truly ground-breaking erudition! :-) PatW (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that might be objected to, which is pretty much everything in this article, should have the proposed text posted here, as well as all necessary sources. Since that hasn't been done, I don't think there can be any consensus for any revision of the article. If Momento makes this change before it's been fully examined/discussed/revealed/whatever, I will revert it. Game playing is tedious, please just present your case so we can move on. This is reminscent of your "there's an error, but I'll wait and see if you find it" discussion above, just make your case already, I don't/won't have time to keep making these short discussions into long discussions for no reason. If anyone make changes without a source, especially in a case where we have opposing sources, I will very likely revert your edit until it has been discussed. I hope that is simple and fair to everyone. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm amazed that we are discussing it. But it is as you say Maelefique; everything I propose is objected to. In fact, you objected to correcting the "very obvious error" until I walked you through it. And I had to go the RS:Noticeboard to get you to stop objecting to obvious reliable sources and you're still going on about it. And I clearly stated the proposal - to change "Satpal Maharaj" to "Satpal Rawat". But even correcting this obvious error is objected to. The Prem Rawat article already states about Millenium - The main organizers were Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (then known as Bal Bhagwan Ji). And you need only click on Satpal's father's name to see it was Hans Ram Singh Rawat and Hans's parents were Ranjit Singh Rawat and Kalindi Devi as clearly stated in Shri Hans's Wiki article. Do we need more sources? If we do I can consult Joshi.Momento (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By your own logic you could equally argue that where in the article it says The main organizers were Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat should be changed to "Satpal Maharaj" because elsewhere in the article it says "Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Maharaj, were suggested as potential successors,". What evidence can you present that one is more correct than than the other? Saying it's obvious just means you can't answer and your wrong and so have no reason to change anything. It also suggests that you want to waste people's time here....again. PatW (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something from the Delhi High Court (not available on any of the sites you provided) [19].Momento (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Great... "Perhaps" then you might want to spill the beans. Why on earth should his common name - what it says on his birth certificate or what the Indian or any other legal system call him suddenly trump what other sources call the guy? Perhaps for the reasons you're about to share, we should go through the entire article - beyond to all Wikipidea, replacing all references to titles like 'Maharaji ' or 'Queen Elizabeth 11" with common marital surnames. "Mrs Elizabeth Windsor" for example. PatW (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One is his legal, birth name "Sat(ya) Pal Singh Rawat", like "Prem Pal Singh Rawat" which he carries all his life. And the other, "Satpal Maharaj" is a title that he assumed in 1974 after his mum pronounced him a guru. Since this article is about Prem Rawat (the legal birth name of Maharaji) and the years involving Satpal predate his assuming the title "Satpal Maharaj", it is clearer and more accurate to also describe him by his legal birth name, Satpal Rawat.Momento (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, why do you think Raja Ji was referred to as "Shri Raja Ji Maharaj" during the sixties as referenced from the primary source above? All the brothers seem to have been sometimes called "Maharaj" (as was there father) from childhood. So I think you are wrong about that. Secondly - I have been trying to determine what is the rule for names. Reading the article it seems to me that there have been vague principles at work. At present the article leans towards avoiding using popular names or titles from the era that is being described. As you say, the subject of the article is always referred to, whatever the era, as Prem Rawat. This strikes me as good from a point of consistency - but it clearly would be confusing not to explain to the reader what the popular titles were for people during the 'decades' these sections set out to describe. This does happen for Prem Rawat although only in the lede. Other personages fare less well, so if the object is to dignify the person with their current preferred name as a general rule (as the rule would appear to be for Prem Rawat) - but to also explain what they were popularly known as at the time - then I would suggest the the fairest and most consistent solution would be to keep "Satpal Maharaj" (which is what he likes to be called now) and use this consistently through the article. Now as to your reasoning that everyone should be named as per the example of Rawat. If Queen Elizabeth 11 were to feature in this article would you want to call her 'Elizabeth Windsor'? For that is what we should do by your logic! Prem Rawat quite deliberately chose and gave instructions in the nineties, to be called Prem Rawat (his common name). This represented a deliberate preference to move away from being publicly called 'Maharaji' which had been his previous public name for decades. No-one can pretend that this was just because he preferred to use the name a Delhi Court might use. It was a move away from Indian religious connotations. Rawat's brother Satpal on the other hand has never wished to dissociate himself from his Indian religiosity or title - in fact he chooses to be called 'Satpal Maharaj' to this day. You and Joshi (who is he anyway?) apparently want to deprive Satpal of his title and refer to him as would a Delhi Law Court. For what reason I ask? The consistency rule is absurd since you wouldn't call the Queen 'Elizabeth' (I hope). The only possible remaining reason is that you know it would be disrespectful and insulting to Satpal. PatW (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from attributing opinions to me I haven't expressed. And then saying I'm wrong. FYI Raja Ji is referred to in the article by his given name Dharam Pal as are all the brothers. And secondly what you consider my logic re Queen Elibeth is your imagination. Wiki has a policy on naming royalty, I suggest you read it. You may not call QEII "Elizabeth " but Wikipedi does. Less talk, more reading. Satpal Rawat is consistent with Prem Rawat, Satpal Rawat was how his lawyers referred to him in 1974, Rawat is his father's and grandfather's surname, Maharaj is a title not a name. Everything confirms that for consistency Satpal Rawat should be called Satpal Rawat and there are mpeccable contemporary sources to support it. As for your final fantasy that I want to call Satpal "Rawat" to insult him, again please don't assume I think the same way you do. Momento (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done what you suggested and read more. According to the guidelines listed below the initial reference to Rawat's brother Satpal should for clarity, include his honorary and popular titles 'Satpal Maharaj (Satpal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji' and 'Bal Bhagwan Ji') as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satpal_Maharaj and then subsequent references can simply be to 'Satpal'. I would agree for the article to be revised in accordance with these guidelines but fail to see how your current proposal is in line with them.

[Multiple_and_changed_surnames] The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known.
[Honorific_titles] Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (presently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa.
[Honorific_titles] The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name. Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, since doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling). Similarly, honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus.
[Subsequent_use] After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms".
[Family_members_with_the_same_surname] To distinguish between family members with the same surname, use given names or complete names to refer to relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity.
[Naming_conventions_Indic] Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title. Examples are Sri Chand where 'Sri' is a title andA.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada where Swami and Prabhupada are honorific. Redirects should be used for other forms of an individual's name.

PatW (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like pretty sound policy-based reasoning to me. I was thinking the same way myself, just hadn't had time to read up on the relevant policies yet. Thanks for posting it clearly for us here. I think based on what I read here that I agree that Momento's suggestion does not fall in line with WP's established guidelines. And a correction from above, I did not say everything Momento proposes is objected to. I said that proposed edits that could be contentious, and without sources, would be opposed, whoever they come from. Also, please note, as shown above, Momento's "obvious error" was inserted into the article by Momento, which shows that a little patience and examination of ideas before inserting them is probably not a bad thing. I'm assuming it wasn't inserted as an error on purpose, so I guess it wasn't that obvious afterall. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you really in a biography call Queen Elisabeth "Queen Elisabeth", when she is described as still a child?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No. However in the case of the Rawat brothers they were also publicly known by their honorific titles from very early childhood and thereafter. ie at various times Bal Bhagwan Ji, Bhole Ji, Raja Ji, Balyogeshwar, Maharaj etc. So it seems that info should be include at the initial mention of their names as Wiki guidelines suggest. Have you ever referred to Raja Ji as "Dharam Pal"? PatW (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but even less as a "Maharaj". But certainly as a Rawat.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see policy at the forefront, however much of material you've included above applies only to the subject of the biography not to everyone who appears in the biography. The subject gets as much detail as possible and the bit players get enough info for clarity. For instance, in Satpal's own article, he is treated like Prem in this one and Prem is treated like Satpal in this one. So in Satpal's article Satpal's various names and titles are fully expressed, whereas Prem Pal is only described as "Prem Pal" not as "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar). Of the items above, the most relevant is Family_members_with_the_same_surname which says - "to distinguish between family members with the same surname (as the article subject), use given names or complete names to refer to relatives (of the subject of the article) upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity". So Satpal will be described as "Satpal Rawat" on his first mention and Satpal thereafter. However since he was also called Bal Bhagwan Ji during his period of association and in almost every source when both are mentioned it should be included. So Satpal's first mention in the article should be - "Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat ( also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji), were suggested as potential successors. Thereafter Satpal is described as "Satpal". "Satpal Rawat" should also link to the "Satpal Maharaj" article.Momento (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The initial mention would be more accurate if it said - ""Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Singh Rawat (also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji and Satpal Maharaj), were suggested as potential successors." Can't see why one would want to leave out the current name/title, especially since that is what is linked to. PatW (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Rawat article is titled "Prem Rawat" without the "Singh" for continuity it's best to leave it out of Satpal's name. As per Satpal's article where Prem Rawat only gets "Prem Rawat" not "Prem Pal Singh Rawat". The object, as per above, is "clarity and brevity". "Bal Bhagwan" gets in because it appears in contemporaneous sources. Once Rawat and Satpal go their separate ways, Satpal is of no interest to this biography.Momento (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"The subject gets as much detail as possible and the bit players get enough info for clarity". We already have that. You're the one that's arguing to change it from what we have now. As it stands, there's no confusion as to who PR's brother is. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rawat has two eldest brothers. According to the article Rawat has two eldest brothers - "Satpal Maharaj" and "Satpal Rawat (then known as Bal Bhagwan Ji)". Clearly the latter is more correct.Momento (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is only one "eldest" brother. There can be multiple "elder" brothers. Will Beback talk 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the point Momento is making...that we have 2 names for one person. (Why did I get involved in this? I am out of here now. Basta!) Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the article is fairly consistent with referring to Satpal as the eldest brother (the one time it doesn't directly, it's referred to in the same paragraph), the other fact is that both names are wikilinks to the same article. Anyone that interested in his brother is likely to go read that article, but I don't see any confusion here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is that Momento wants to remove the word 'Maharaj' (which is a Guru title) from the initial reference to 'Satpal'. FYI there is one legal name 'Satpal Singh Rawat' (Singh is a common middle name and title. And contrary to Momento's suggestion might well be included in Prem Rawat's name here too). Additionally there are at least 2 equally significant honorary titles 'Bal Bhagwan Ji' and 'Satpal Maharaj'. The latter being his popular title now as a Guru of his own sect in India. Wikipedia offers guidance on how to present this, but Momento is trying to justify his intention to remove Satpal's title 'Maharaj' from the initial reference. His stated reasons are 'for brevity' (a very contentious reason for omissions since it is so open to abuse) and that 'Satpal Maharaj' is a title that was adopted after Prem Rawat's "period of association" with Satpal. By this he probably means pretty much ever since the highly publicised 1975 court battle between the two in India. This incident, although covered in dozens of reputable newspapers of the time, remains conspicuously absent from this article. Ie. From Indian Associated Press - "An Indian judge scolded rival gurus Maharaj Ji and his oldest brother today and told them to settle their dispute over who is "perfect master" of their sect outside of court." Sufficit to say the outcome of this was the bifurcation of Divine Light Mission both in terms of leader, followers and property [[20]]. So understandably the Rawat camp don't want to mention Satpal's honorific title 'Maharaj' which is essentially his title as a competing 'Satguru' and one that he has held for the majority of his life until this day. The reason I think it should be stay is that it is his current title, meaningful, relevant and informative (to those who understand the term) and I don't like to see premies asserting their biased agenda here without some informed resistance.PatW (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton is right. At the time mentioned in the article, Satpal was just Satpal Rawat, or, if anything else, Bal Bhagwan Ji. His later career can be taken from his linked article. But we're going in circles again, don't we, pointing out the obvious? --Rainer P. (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're concerned with using the most common name at the time we then we shouldn't refer to "Prem Rawat". For almost 20 years he was universally known as "Guru Maharaj Ji". Will Beback talk 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is already mentioned in the first lines.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. But then we refer to the subject as "Rawat" even when everyone was calling him "Guru Maharaj Ji". Anyway, I think this is a very minor issue. I'm amazed at the way everything about this article becomes a huge argument. Will Beback talk 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazing indeed.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So can I take it that I can remove the inconsistency and replace "Satpal Maharaj" as proposed above?Momento (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for that change. Will Beback talk 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you either agree or object to my proposal to eliminate the inconsistency with this change - ""...Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat ( also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji), were suggested as potential successors". Thereafter Satpal is described as "Satpal" in this article.Momento (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The existing wiki-links alone suffice to eliminate any possible confusion over who is being referred to. as well, as shown by PatW, your suggestion doesn't follow WP guidelines (although could probably be tweaked to do so). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for outside help.Momento (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento, you have twice referenced "Joshi" in this section, who is that? From your comments you seem to be suggesting we should know who that is, and that they have some kind of credibility on this topic. Are we supposed to know who that is? I don't think I know anyone with that name. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

a Joshi that he could mean and who is close to the subject could be Jose Fresco aka Jossi(Joshi would be the hebrew version), i also think Momento should clarify that Surdas (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving bot change

Currently the archiving bot on this page is set to 90 days. That was fine since we were enjoying a period of relatively low activity here, however, since some issues have been generating a lot of text lately, this page seems to be getting a little unwieldy, at least to me. Anyone have an objection to me changing the archiving bot down to 30 days? Would anyone prefer 45 days? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Either one would be fine. Will Beback talk 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Either is fine.Momento (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Rumiton (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No objectionPatW (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Where would I ask this question?

I don't know the right forum for this, and I would like some outside answers (I'm getting pretty good at guessing the answers of most ppl here to any given situation), but I just went and looked up that domain that has expired, and here's what I see:

Registrant:

The Prem Rawat Foundation

1223 Wilshire Blvd, ste 464

Santa Monica, CA 90403

US

Domain name: PEACEFORPEOPLE.NET

Administrative Contact:

Fresco, Jossi web_projects@mac.com

1223 Wilshire Blvd, ste 464

Santa Monica, CA 90403

US

+1.18054922661

Technical Contact:

Master, Host support@clickandname.com

9725 Datapoint Dr

Ste 100

San Antonio, TX 78229

Record expires on 06-Feb-2012.

Record created on 06-Feb-2011.

Since Jossi is not allowed to edit here, and it looks like he's the admin for that site, wouldn't posting information from that site be only one step removed from just letting him edit directly? (we tried that, didn't work out so well). Anyway, I really just want to know where I should ask that question, unless you have something other than the obvious viewpoints here. Please and thank you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be like dismissing any comment Will Beback makes because he is being accused in an ARB:COM case of "Will Beback has violated the WP:BATTLEGROUND policy in his conduct in the topic areas of new religious movements, cults, and political parties". Here's the link to the TV segment [21].Momento (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. Does anyone know where I would ask that question to an outside editor, as I already have a good idea about the answers I will get from those here. Is there a specific forum for a question like this that is appropriate? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, save that argument for when Will gets banned for life from Wikipedia for lying to everyone's face for years, then I'll agree with you that it's the same thing. Until then, no it's not. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just giving another example of the inappropriateness of jumping to conclusions.Momento (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In the past I have asked similar questions here [[22]] with extremely helpful results. PatW (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pat, but I'm not sure that's the best forum, this seems like more of a technical question to me. Also, Momento, that's not the right link. I was looking for the TPRF video that interviewed captain carter, not the TV footage. Rumiton posted the link originally. But thanks anyway. I don't see any jumping to conclusions here (or I wouldn't need an opinion from other editors), so I'm not sure why we needed an example, but ok, thanks again. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment that "(You) are getting pretty good at guessing the answers of most ppl here to any given situation" is jumping to conclusions.Momento (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a conclusion, based on facts that I personally have observed previously here, and that doesn't make sense with what you wrote above, but ok, whatever. Please see the section below. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you follow the TPRF program links you get this [23] Rumiton (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there was another one, speaking directly with the news reporter. That should be on the segment piece. Rumiton (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a conclusion based on perception. That you think they are facts is another assumption.Momento (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That you consider anything here to exist other than you is an assumption, but some assumptions are so obvious I'm ok with calling them facts, if you're not, you'll just have to consider that since you can only assume I exist, then you can only assume this either isn't here, or you wrote it. Can we stop wasting time yet? Or are you too busy here to answer the question I've asked twice, once in it's own section now? (See how I'm asking, instead of assuming you're going to stop?) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not answer your question. And on the subject of time wasting - how much time of ours have you wasted with your lack of understanding with the "Obvious Error" proposal, your objections to the UTSA and Univision source and to the "Satpal Rawat"/"Satpal Maharaj" inconsistency in the article. Those three improvements to the article could have happened in five minutes without the unnecessary POV objectionsMomento (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, I will not prevaricate. I'll answer your question honestly; none. I have used due diligence to make sure more errors, like the "obvious error" you refer to, you know, the one you put in the article originally, doesn't happen again. Also, if a change doesn't benefit the article, or it seems like a change only to make a change, ya, I'm likely to be opposed to that. And Rumiton and I had actually agreed to an insert from the UTSA/Univision source, and then you came along and scuttled it, so that part doesn't make too much sense. Your objections to it were correct, but my point is, time was taken up, not by me. Also, only *you* can waste your time (ironically your reply confirmed another fact/assumption/conclusion, colour me not surprised). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should spend more time checking and less time assuming. One, the edit I made was chronologically correct and properly sourced as per [24]. It was Rumiton who mucked up the chronology and new incorrect sources were later added. Two, of the three edits proposed all were to improve the article - one was to fix a chronological and sourcing error (agreed and done), one was inserting new, current and properly sourced material (agreed and done) and the third addresses a contradiction in the article (progressing). Three, Will Beback was objecting at every point to the PEP addition, right up until the fourth last comment before it was inserted.Momento (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

haha, yes, wink wink, I'm sure it was Rumiton's doing, he causes so many problems, let's just say it was him, and you're only just now noticing that, even though it's been mentioned several times over the last couple of weeks, yes, that sounds right. As for the edits, it sounds like that's exactly how an article should progress, so situation normal, all systems go! bravo team, way to go! As much as I'll probably regret asking, Charles wanted to know, why are you telling me about what Will is doing? Will has every right to object to anything he likes, as do you, which you obviously, based on your talk page contributions, know already. Oh shoot, is that an assumption? If it is, my mistake, and just so you know, you can object to things here. It's especially encouraged if they are policy-based objections (like Will often has) as opposed to the "I don't like that" kind of objection, which is often the case around here. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 01:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you didn't bother to open the link and see my correct edit. But just in case you do want to find out the truth later, here's Rumiton's edit a few days after mine where he takes the sentence I had correctly inserted after the sentence about Rawat's father's death and inserts it before his father's death thus [25]. And if you really want to know the whole truth, check out the source - it's "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America by Eugene V. Gallagher", not these incorrect sources ^[3]^[4]. So my edit to insert the sentence was correct in terms of chronology and source, and Rumiton's edit is out of order and the sources I objected to last week we're not attached to the sentence when I added. Nudge, nudge , know what I mean.Momento (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! You made 2 assumptions and I thought you said we shouldn't make those here. First, I *did* read the link, and second, sadly, no one book contains "the whole truth". "Verifiable, not true"^{tm Jossi 2008(or is that Joshi?)} that's what important remember. I don't know why we're still talking about this, I already agreed to blame Rumiton with you. I guess I'm just happy that even though it took you just over 2 years to notice it, that you're still paying attention. But then again, I guess you did have a little time to kill. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're still talking because you said "like the "obvious error" you refer to, you know, the one you put in the article originally, doesn't happen again". When I didn't put it in. Momento (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're blaming Rumiton, remember? Thought we'd agreed on this already... twice.-- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 06:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I liked one of Will's comments that ended an earlier thread, something like: This discussion is producing more heat than light.. It certainly applies here.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not about blaming Rumiton, it's about whether you have the integrity to admit that your claim that "more errors, like the "obvious error" you refer to, you know, the one you put in the article originally, doesn't happen again" is false. That I made no error and the diffs I provided prove it.Momento (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen Rainer. There will be no minds changing in this section anyway. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html. Retrieved 2012-01-28. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "University of Texas at San Antonio" ignored (help)
^ http://www.utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html. Retrieved 2012-01-28. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "University of Texas at San Antonio" ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Cite error: The named reference Mangalwadi135-136 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Geaves (2006b), p. 64
^ ^a ^b ^c Aagaard (1980)
^ ^a ^b ^c US Department of the Army (2001)
^ Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Melton1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Melton (1986), p. 141–2
^ ^a ^b Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p. 861
^ Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861
^ Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861

[1] ttp://www.utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html. Retrieved 2012-01-28. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "University of Texas at San Antonio" ignored (help)

[2] ttp://www.utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html. Retrieved 2012-01-28. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "University of Texas at San Antonio" ignored (help)

[Mangalwadi135-136-3] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Cite error: The named reference Mangalwadi135-136 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Geaves2006b64-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Geaves (2006b), p. 64

[Aagaard1980-5] Aagaard (1980)

[AP165-13-6] US Department of the Army (2001)

[7] Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861

[Melton1986-8] Cite error: The named reference Melton1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[MeltonDLM-9] Melton (1986), p. 141–2

[EoC1998-10] Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p. 861

[11] Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861

[12] Fahlbusch et al. (1998), p.861

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]