Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 48

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 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

"Simple Change" question for Momento

This may have been missed, this page has been kind of chaotic with sections of activity all at once here, so I thought I would break it out for visibility. I had asked above (in the "Simple Change" section), the following question;

"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 guess it's not only a question for Momento, does anyone else know who this is? Is this someone we've spoken of/used/know about from previous discussions? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To save editors time, I'll just quote Momento here, anyone else who may have been looking for that answer can save time just by reading here:

"No, I will not answer your question..."

But that's ok, Charles and I understand... oh, I should mention, Charles isn't real... he's just a figment too. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to feel like a spectator at a bad marriage. I would like to look away but... I...can't. Rumiton (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have gone with a "roadkill" analogy, but I know, I know. Somedays, I just ...can't...stop...myself. :) -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Peace Education Program

[[1]] Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No comments? If there is no objection to this academic source (which seems to be impeccable) I will go ahead and start a new section based on the information it contains. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The source seems initially fine with me, but please put your proposed text here for review before changing the article again, after so much dischord here in the past, and all the work we all went through to finally get the article into some kind of shape, it really makes me a lot less teamwork-y when someone just unilaterally adds text to it without specific discussion of it. As you know, even when we all agree, the final text inserted is seldom the same as what was proposed originally. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Unilateral? Never. But when we do agree, I hope in a month's time no one will jump up and say, Who agreed to that? I wasn't involved! Recount! What has a detergent company got to do with this subject? and so forth. Just saying. Rumiton (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And likewise I hope no one waits a month and tries to slip something in the article by doing an end run around the process and then stand there blinking and looking innocent when they know that's not how it's ever been done around here and so forth. Just saying. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not be hypothetical. We both know no editor here would do that. Rumiton (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a press release. It's issued by the "Associate Director of Media Relations", not by an academic. Press releases are self-published sources, and only usable for the entity that publishes them, in this case UTSA. Will Beback talk 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah God, I lost my bet! Someone bet me Will Beback would claim this is a press release, and I said, He can't! This is an official statement by a major US university quoting one of their own senior academics (Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice.) References don't come any more authentic than this, it just isn't possible. Anyway, I'll go ahead and start a precis of the article for a new section. Hopefully we will all see our way through this. Rumiton (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The conference was a few days ago. Once we get independent secondary sources writing about it then it'd be great to include something in the article.

So who is the winner of the bet? Will Beback talk 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I lost, Will. I will never bet against you again. This is arguably, at a stretch, a primary source for the UTSA conference, which doesn't much matter, but it is secondary for the Peace Education Program. I will write about that. Rumiton (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's acceptable for Rumiton to use a university newspaper for a source, then doesn't logic follow that information in the The Daily Californian article, regarding Rawat's program at University of California-Berkeley, Zellerbach Hall, in 2003, (where former members were not allowed admission) should also be allowed to be mentioned in the 2000s section of this article? Website: The Daily Californian. Wasn't it argued by adherents that The Daily Californian should be disallowed because it's a student newspaper? Sylviecyn (talk)

Are you seriously comparing an official statement by an associate professor at a major American university with an opinion piece by an unknown student editor in a student magazine? And "devotee Jai Satchianand?" A break, please. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that "Christi Fish" is an associate professor? There's nothing on the newsletter site or the entire UTSA website that mentions her, and I searched all the university directories. No Christi Fish. If anything, she's associate director of the university's media relations dept. You are moving too quickly with all of these edits, one after another, and there's no reason for you to be doing this. Let's take each edit of yours one at a time, resolve them (and not by you declaring your edit is resolved!!!!) :( :( If you want to escalate an edit war, keep this up. There's absolutely no reason for you to be in such a rush to add these unsourced edits. Enough is enough!!!! Sylviecyn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you read the whole thing? Look halfway down. The senior academic who studied the implementation of the TPRF prison program was Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice. Christi Fish was just the University media official who released part of his report to the public, and invited them to the "Peace on the Inside" event which was held partly at the university and partly at the prison itself. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Rumiton posted above clearly states that it is referring to The Prem Rawat Foundation, ergo this would be good information possibly to add to a Wikipedia article regarding the TPRF, if there ever is one. I do not think it's suitable for inclusion here, unless you can provide suitable sources that state what Prem is personally doing in this capacity. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Prem Rawat Foundation exists largely to make videos of Prem Rawat's talks and to make them available to people who are interested. That's what is happening here. They are showing the prison inmates and sometimes the correctional staff his videos and getting a very positive response. I agree that it might be time to start a separate TPRF article, but this material concerns Prem Rawat and his message, so it is absolutely relevant to this article. Here is a recorded interview with the senior correctional officer at the prison concerned. He speaks about the effect of Maharaji's message on the prisoners and on himself, when he watched to find out what was going on. The video shows a group of inmates watching Prem Rawat on the screen. Maelefique, Steven and others...please take the 7 minutes to watch this. (If you let it, it could take you beyond the gold toilet seat.) Rumiton (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought TPRF largely existed to feed the poor. Anyway, it's a dead link. And...I'm getting the sense that you are trying to propagate Rawat's message by providing all these links to TPRF. TPRF is not the subject of this article. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the TPRF homepage for its mission statement: In 2001, Prem Rawat started The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), which addresses the fundamental human needs of food, water, and peace. TPRF is Prem Rawat's work, whether you like it or not. It is set up globally to provide nourishing food, clean drinking water and health care where they are lacking, and to teach inner peace to people who desperately need it. And your sour, kneejerk responses are becoming increasingly ill-informed, disruptive and distasteful. Please stop them. Rumiton (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the 2008 Annual Report, 27% of the foundation's expenses go towards humanitarian causes, such as providing food and water, 63% goes towards spreading Rawat's message of peace, and the remaining 10% is overhead.[2] Will Beback talk 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For 2010, the figures are almost reversed [3]. 26% to Message of Peace, 62% humanitarian causes, and 12% operational expenses. Rumiton (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

When we have enough material for a separate article on Prem Rawat's work (TPRF) we can start one. In the meantime, what we do find goes in here. Rumiton (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Following Manual of Style to resolve inconsistency in naming eldest brother

As per the Wiki Manual_of_Style_(biographies *[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", I have resolved the inconsistency in the article by naming the eldest brother, in the first instance, "Satpal" and linking it to his article. In the second instance "Satpal (known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji)". And "Satpal" there after Momento (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the WP article, his name is most commonly referred to as Satpal Maharaj. Our article is not called Satpal Rawat, ergo, they don't necessarily have the same surname, and the first link should probably be Satpal Maharaj, not Satpal Maharaj|Satpal. Comments? -- Maelefique^(talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't have the same surname?! Satpal's father and grandfather have "Rawat" as their surname and an Indian court has "Rawat" as his surname. So there is no doubt his surname is "Rawat". And on this subject MoS is clear - 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". And "Satpal Maharaj" is a title not a given name, Satpal's article says his wife is "Amrita Rawat" and there are numerous references to her by that name. Momento (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS is clear, that's not what I'm talking about. Here is a better example than the WP article:

SH. SATPAL MAHARAJ

28, MAHADEV ROAD

NEW DELHI

TEL. 28315232, 9810990009

That is his listing from the India Congress page for members of congress, it doesn't appear that his name is legally used as Satpal Rawat, or at least it's not legally his name. Ergo, we shouldn't be using it as the norm here either. There is also someone else listed, I don't know who this person is, but he *does* use the name Rawat:

SH. HARISH RAWAT, MOS

9, TEEN MURTHY LANE

NEW DELHI

TEL. 23793152, 23793184, 98681-81200

Even if "Maharaj" is an honorific (is it?), then MOS says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included" -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do I begin? Satpal Singh Rawat is his given, legal name, of that there is no doubt. "Bal Bhagwan Ji" , "Maharaj", "ji", "Shri" etc are honorifics. MoS says "use their given name". Satpal Rawat was also known as "Bal Bhagwan Ji" up until Prem Rawat turned sixteen and defied his mother, who then declared Satpal the new guru and he took the title "Satpal Maharaj" and stopped using "Bal Bhagwan Ji". As far as this article is concerned and the time frame concerned Satpal Rawat was known by the honorific "Bal Bhagwan Ji" and that is why it is included. If you do further research you will find that Satpal is still known as "Satpal Rawat" by the Indian government as recently as a few months ago.[4]Momento (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So then, based on chronology, and the MOS guideline, would you agree we also change "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother. She retained control of the Indian DLM and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader." to "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother. She retained control of the Indian DLM and appointed her eldest son, now known as Satpal Maharaj, as its leader."? -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, because MoS still says 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". In fact, I'm going to remove the second reference of "eldest son" as it has already been stated.Momento (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS also says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, but if you read further it says "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"" except of course when appearing in a biographical article of someone else with the same surname, in which case - "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". Satpal's honorific was "Bal Bhagwan Ji" and it is mentioned. "Bal Bhagwan Ji" gets 25,000 Google hits, "Satpal Maharaj" gets only 13,000. Momento (talk) 07:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this discussion. You are clearly arguing from your personal POV rather than from Wiki policy or guidelines.Momento (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But as you said, his honorific changed, and it's not mentioned, and that's relevant. So the policy seems to me that we should include the new honorific once. If there are no other policy based objections, I will make the change to the article later today. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As the court document and other sources prove Satpal has been using Satpal Rawat as his given name his entire life and therefore "Satpal" is how MoS says he must be described. "Bal Bhagwan Ji" is mentioned because that what he was known as during his time of association with Prem Rawat and how he was frequently described in contemporaneous sources. He started using "Satpal Maharaj" AFTER his last mention in this biography and therefore it is irrelevant here just as it is irrelevant that he became a member of parliament. MoS policy is clear [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".Momento (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret the MOS in the same way you do. If you prefer, I'm also ok with changing the "Satpal (known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji)" to ""Satpal (known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji, and now known as Satpal Maharaj)" instead. My reference to the Indian parliament was only to show that it is a commonly used name for him, and therefore the MOS policy that says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". I'm not arguing that his birthname isn't Satpal Rawat. -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The section about "honorifics" applies to the present tense. He wasn't known by that title at the time concerned.Momento (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Everybody - Don't you think we should revert Momento and or replace what he's put? Reasons - 1) He's wrong about the Wiki Guidelines (see arguments above and below herewith) It's perfectly clear ALL the relevant current honorary titles would be best to include in the first mentioning and then subsequently he should be called 'Satpal'. Momento's reasoning is utterly confused as usual. 2) He's not got consensus from any of the people (including myself) with whom this matter was extensively discussed

Here are the reasons again -

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) 19:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The first mention of Satpal that I see is now just a Satpal link but points to the article Satpal Maharaj. I still think that should be changed, I also see now that Momento includes the Bal Bhagwan Ji honorific later in the article, I get his chronology reasoning, but I don't believe that it's correct according to the MOS. Does the suggestion below seem like it meets all the guidelines:

Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, [[Satpal_Maharaj|Satpal]], were suggested as potential successors,

changes to:

Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat (known later as Bal Bhagwan Ji, and currently as Satpal Maharaj) , were suggested as potential successors,

I don't know how significant we feel the Bal Bhagwan Ji reference is, to keep the article trimmed and tidy, can we skip that to make it:

Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat (known now as Satpal Maharaj) , were suggested as potential successors,

or does that cause more problems than it fixes? -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the second of your suggestions is the best solution. I see some potential merit in the chronological re-use of 'Bal Bhagwan Ji' later on, but a) I also don't believe that it's correct according to the MOS and b) for sure that needs to be included in the first mentioning for clarity; as does the initial reference to his current Wikipedia article name 'Satpal Maharaj'. PatW (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to keep 'Bal Bhagwan Ji' in the article, then you mean the first of my suggestions don't you? The second one doesn't include that. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just got around to following up on that google thing. From where I am (www.google.ca), I get "About 13,400 results (0.15 seconds)" for "Satpal Maharaj", and I get "About 11,600 results (0.16 seconds)" for "Bal Bhagwan Ji", which is the opposite result to what Momento got. I don't know why. But of course, that's assuming that Google is now settling disputes here anyway, which, uhm, I dispute! :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I left the "h" out of "Bal Bhagwan Ji". Momento (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not known later as Bal Bhagwan Ji, but known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rainer, he was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji when their father died? -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong - Maelefique, Rainer and I seem to agree now that (in line with MOS ) the first reference to Satpal should say Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat (known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji, and currently as Satpal Maharaj) , were suggested as potential successors, The MOS suggests that the later references should use one of these for consistency. I suggest we discuss each of these later occurrences separately. Obviously without ALL these titles explained earlier, honorary or otherwise, who one is talking about further down the page is unclear. Yes, I believe Satpal was called Bal Bhagwan from early childhood. Shall we go ahead and make this change? All agreed? PatW (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Pat, I think you are correct, with the likely exception of one editor, we are agreed. I think your suggestion above is exactly right, and for the further references, I think we can then take out the "(known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji)" in the 1970-73 section, and we can probably just leave the rest as Satpal, no? But initally yes, I think your suggestion above is agreeable to me, Rainer, and you, so I will make that change now. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Maelifique, what is your source for Satpal being known as Bal Bhagwan JI before Prem Rawat became Satguru. And please, check your punctuation. This is the second error you've made in your last two edits.Momento (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I'll skip the part where I mention you typo-ed a google search and then presented that here as some kind of evidence (my mistake created a small grammatical error, yours created a 180 degree change of the facts, Really? You're then going to snipe about a comma?? Not even Rumiton and I do that!). Lol, ok, technically, I guess I didn't skip over that part... Does anyone other than you dispute that's true? Otherwise, I'm not sure it's contentious, unless you have some kind of proof that it's wrong, in which case, please elucidate, and if necessary, I'll do likewise. -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps mentioned somewhere in Cagan's book? I'm not sure about an explicit source for this, but then even less can be sourced that he was called Bal Bhagwan Ji only after his father's death. To me it always felt like "Mata Ji", "Bhole Ji", "Raja Ji" and "Bal Bhagwan Ji" ranged on a similar level as "Sant Ji", and nobody cared about surnames then. They seemed to be terms of endearment, rather than distinct titles like "Guru Maharaj Ji".--Rainer P. (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what we think, what matters is, can you verify your claim that Satpal was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji at that time. If you can't, please remove the claim.Momento (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can, the question was do I need to? Do you have anything that contradicts that idea? Do you think it's wrong? If you don't, it's not contentious anyway. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that Satpal was known as "Bal Bhagwan Ji" before Prem Rawat became Sat Guru. Or remove the unsourced claim.Momento (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Taken from Cagan's book, page 3: When Prem was born, the family consisted of his father, shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Shri Maharaji); his mother; his stepmother; and his three older brothers: Sat Pal (Bal Bhagwan Ji), born in 1951; Mahi Pal (Bhole Ji), born in 1953; and Dharam Pal (Raja Ji), born in 1955. Normally that should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done Rainer.Momento (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. I don't mean to be picky but, thinking about it, does one really need to say "Both his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal Rawat?" After all, it's most likely if he's Prem Rawat's brother that he's also a Rawat. Perhaps it'd be less of a mouthful to just say 'Satpal' there. PatW (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think with the differences in Indian names, and the very real chance in the western world, of children having different last names, that it's ok to keep that there for now, but I still think we can go ahead and remove the BBJ reference that I referred to above. And thanks for that cite Rainer, but since when is anything around here normal? :)

"So it was that Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji came into this world the very instant the sun reached its zenith on September 21, 1951." - From "And it is Divine", 1973

Even abnormally, that should suffice. -- Maelefique^(talk) 00:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Mahatma Sampuranand relates an incident that occurred in the later years of Shri Maharaj Ji's life. While in Kashmir, Shri Maharaj Ji dictated a letter to his family in Dehra Dun. He closed by saying, "Give my blessings to Bal Bhagwan Ji, Bhole Ji and Raja Ji (his three older sons), and my prostrations to Sant Ji." - And It Is Divine, Special Millennium Issue, November 1973 page 57 Google Search 'Holy Family Photo' PatW (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done PatW. Looks like it was almost common knowledge at the time. I'm going to remove that later reference to BBJ, since it's repetitive and isn't per MOS either, just fyi. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have now generally agreed with my original proposal, perhaps you might look again at why I left the the "known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji" until the second mention of Satpal. A) It makes the first mention "less of a mouthful" as per PatW and b) it introduces BBJ at the point when the majority of sources refer to Satpal (Millennium).Momento (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If this was your "original proposal", why did you waste everyone's time asking for a source? (funny how everyone but you was able to find a source pretty easily...) Anyway it doesn't matter that it seems more of a mouthful, as you've been jumping up and down about for the last few thousand words here (albeit incorrectly at the time), the MOS has precedence and specific guidelines on this issue. They should be followed. Having said that, if you have a more eloquent way of phrasing it in the first mention, I'd be more than happy to discuss it here first. -- Maelefique^(talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you wasted your time arguing against following MoS and changing "Satpal Maharaj" to "Satpal Rawat" and wasted more time arguing against eliminating the naming inconsistencies. And if you read carefully you'll note that I proposed shifting "known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji" to the Millennium section where there is already a source describing him as "Bal Bagwan Ji" as opposed to the first mention were there wasn't one.Momento (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted for wasting my time (and everyone else who replied) for something that seems fairly obvious you already knew was correct (if that's what you meant). -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, what I meant was that you've wasted your own time and my wanting a source for BBJ being used before Rawat was Guru was because our opinions are WP:OR and we need a source. In fact, I don't believe BBJ was being used before Rawat became Guru and the sources provided are just using contemporary names for an historic event. But I decided it was too subtle to argue about.Momento (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, so we all provided different sources, but we're still all wrong, and it was all WP:OR on our parts originally, that just happen to have sources all over the place that back it up, coincidentally. Got it. Not an apology. Clear now. No problem. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the test for inclusion is not whether it's right or wrong, it's whether it is "verifiable", see WP:V. It's one of the core policies. No one provided a contemporaneous source from the 50s or 60s showing that Satpal was being called BBJ before Rawat became Guru, just sources from the 70s and later using his current title, BBJ, to describe him in the 50 and 60s. Just like someone saying - "The President was born in Hawaii" doesn't mean when he was a child people were calling him "The President". Momento (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you verify they weren't calling him The President? Wait, nope, I concede that, I don't have any notes that Rawat was ever called the president, as a child (also, might want to check your notes, pretty sure he was born in India).

You may or may not be right, but using WP:V can you prove you are correct regarding all those sources provided. If someone Says "Obama came into this world at such and such a time", does that mean he wasn't called Obama either? I don't think so, which is why we go with WP:V and avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR. And don't forget when our imperious leader pointed out that it's "Verifiability, not truth!" that we work with here. The sources say what the sources say. If you have other sources that refute these, then by all means present them so we can deal with that. -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What the sources don't say is that Satpal was being called BBJ "the very instant the sun reached its zenith on September 21, 1951". I sidestepped the issue by introducing BBJ at Millennium which I can verify. Saying the sources prove he was called BBJ in the 50s & 60s is pure SYN.Momento (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source that disputes the sources above, I'm willing to look at it, otherwise, I think this section has run its course. -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are useless. Here's a real source - The Millennium Program which says, at- "3:15 Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji, Guru Maharaj Ji's eldest brother, will speak". It tells us beyond a shadow of doubt that Satpal was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji at Millennium. It's not second hand, a reminiscence or someone's opinion, it's a fact. All you've got is someone from the seventies saying the person they know as "Bal Bhagwan Ji" was born on "on September 21, 1951", someone from 2000+ saying that the person known as "Bal Bhagwan Ji" was part of the family when Rawat was born and a photo of him. What you need is a reliable source from before 1966 that says "the eldest brother was called Bal Bhagwan Ji. As I said it's WP:SYN. You've taken "So it was that Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji came into this world the very instant the sun reached its zenith on September 21, 1951" and joined Fact 'A' there is someone called "Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji" to Fact B "he was born in "1951" and created "he was called Bal Bhagwan Ji in 1951"!Momento (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not dispute the sources that have been provided. Your comments above add nothing further than to insult the intelligence of the people who have attempted to reason with you ad nauseam over an edit you made without consensus. You should know that, where there are no secondary sources available, primary sources can be used with care (as everyone except you accepts is the correct solution here). PatW (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not say that Satpal was being called BBJ before 1966. They simply confirm that Satpal was known as BBJ at the time the comments were made. On that we are all agreed. And there are plenty of sources that confirm he was being called BBJ in the 70s. But none have been provided that show he was being called BBJ in the 50s or 60s.Momento (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No one but you is agreed on that. Further, no one else is arguing against you that he was known as BBJ in the 70's either. We have multiple sources, consensus, and the edit has been made. If you have no source that disputes it, you're only being disruptive. As per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, please stop already. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Elton John was born in 1947. Photos of him as a child describe him as "Elton John". His Wiki article says "John started playing the piano at the age of 3". But Elton John didn't exist until he decided to call himself that in the 60s and certainly no one called Reg Dwight "Elton". Just because Satpal was called BBJ in the 70s doesn't mean he was called that in the 50s and 60s. So the claim that in 1966 "Satpal Rawat (known then as Bal Bhagwan Ji) is unsourced.Momento (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just poor logic. A does not equal B, therefore C does not equal D? Wrong. Find a source that says he wasn't, or I think we just have to accept the sources we have. Still. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You haven't got a source that demonstrates that Satpal was known as BBJ in the 60s. And BLP is clear "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". And "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" and you added it.Momento (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is from Shri Hans. SHRI HANS Have you got that?? "While in Kashmir, SHRI MAHARAJI dictated a letter to his family in Dehra Dun. He closed by saying, "Give my blessings to BAL BHAGWAN JI, Bhole Ji and Raja Ji (his three older sons), and my prostrations to Sant Ji". PatW (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another he said, he said years after the fact. The letter would be a great source but if there was a letter why were Mata JI and senior DLM wondering who should take over?Momento (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PatW, I edited your comment above for civility, if you, or anyone else, feels that was wrong of me, please revert it, or ask me to. Anyway, regarding your comment, if I follow what you were saying, that is a letter from PR's Dad? I think we don't need anymore nails in this coffin, but if that's what you're saying, I'd have to say that's conclusive proof alright, and thanks for that. Where is that source? Regarding this topic, unless Momento has a source that says otherwise, I will revert his edit if he removes our consensus edit (without a new consensus). He can make all the comments he wants here, I'm just going to ignore this section unless he provides a source. Otherwise, it just stirs up a lot of unproductive emotion that isn't going to change anything anyway. Do you have any thoughts on the peace bomb section below? Oh and FYI, Momento's claim that we need a contemporaneous source is, I'm sure, just meant as a chuckle, since he would obviously realize that would preclude us from ever writing a reference book about *anything* that ever happened before about 1900, since no one alive now would have been around to write it at the time. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique I'll answer you tomorrow. It's late here . Meanwhile to Momento....

Ha ha. I know you and Jossi know the answer to that but just want to make work for us here. So... as any good little premie who's done their homework should know...Mata JI and senior DLM wondered who should take over BECAUSE the whole succession issue had brought about splits in allegiance and confusion even at that early stage....hardly surprising as Rawat's dad had previously publicly paraded his first born (BBJ) before Rawat came along, as if he were his chosen successor. That was clearly the intended message. But then the old boy may have changed his mind when little Prem started to show a talent for charming the devotees. That, plus all the power politics, was enough to confuse Mata Ji and the then DLM old guard. This story was later related by Mahatmas faithful to Rawat (post Rawat's split with Mataji) throughout the seventies to illustrate how dumb Rawat's mother was to proclaim BBJ as the next God when all along dad had intended Prem to wear the crown. (Hence the letter's repeated reference in 'And It Is Divine' publications). Anyway there you have it - the primary sources are clear on the matter. I've provided links to all the ex-premie sites where these scanned magazines are re-published. There's probably loads more examples. But you haven't provided anything at all to the contrary apart from wagging your Wiki-Prefect finger at us in a most unimpressive manner. So what's the fuss? Can I go to bed now? PatW (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and here's the source for the reference to the Shri Hans letter PatW (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you go to the Millennium invitation letter you'll see that Rawat signed it "Sant Ji". So what we have is a mahatma saying Shri Hans sent his regards to Satpal, Mahi Pal and Dharam Pal and prostrations to Prem Pal using the names they were using in the 70s. Momento (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK clever clogs - I suggest you go correct your own Master on this point because in the WOPG Video "Prem Rawat Remembers Hans Ji" he says - "Today what you see, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, 100,000, 300,000 the seeds of it are planted way back. Not only that he has a clear vision, 100%, as clear as it gets. He goes, sets up a picnic and his eldest son is in Mussoorie at this college. He goes, he sets up a picnic with him and he tells him, "Don't try to become anything and let Sant, which is what I was called, let him do whatever he wants to do." PatW (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

""There are plenty of sources saying PR was called Sant JI in the 60s but we still don't have one saying Satpal was called BBJ in the 60s.Momento (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No more Chit Chat

Let's keep this page for editing discussions.Momento (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NO Chit-chat and Never delay in attending satsang! ROFL :-) PatW (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here come the summoned worms. Have fun!--Rainer P. (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing a topic for inclusion, and chit-chat. Just because no one is yelling or stamping their feet doesn't mean we're not dealing with the article. At least, that's how I see it. But ya, plain old chit-chat? I want none of that here please! -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Glastonbury

At the 6 minute mark of the video that Rumiton linked to, PR says "If the true God is equal for everyone, like we say Bhagwan in hindi, God in english, Khuda in urdu, then God is the same thing then his knowledge will be all the same" It doesn't sound like he's confused between eastern and western ideas about what God is. He's saying it's all the same thing, isn't he? Worms everywhere... -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The true God should not be confused with ideas about what God is.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's right, but we need secondary sources for all this. Do we have any new ones? Otherwise I suggest we close this pointless debate. I am sorry it didn't go anywhere, I believe your attempt was sincere. Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Peace Bomb

I always got the impression that this event was under-appreciated by our article a little bit. From what I've come across here and there, this event was attended by possibly up to a million (might be the wrong number) people in the street. That seems pretty big to me. Anyone think we should be able to find out more about this event that "marked the start of his international work"? -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. Do you have some BLP-worthy, preferably academic sources to tell us about it? Rumiton (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not yet, nothing at all, other than the occasional references I've come across along the way, but then, I haven't really looked for any. I didn't want to go off on a big hunt for things, to find out that no one else thinks it's worth expanding on in the first place. Do you have any? -- Maelefique^(talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not in English. But I am learning a lot about google-searching in foreign languages. Have been doing that for a while in languages like Italian and German, which use our alphabet, but I didn't know you could do it with other lettering. I recently found quite a bit from the mainstream Indian press on the big events he has held and on TPRF humanitarian work in India and Nepal. I will try to get them translated. I think the Peace Bomb coverage (there must have been some) might be a bit too ancient to be on record. Rumiton (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone who watches our innocent fun just made me aware of this: [[5]].

An estimated 1 million people participated in what is considered the largest procession in the history of New Delhi, India on 8 October 1970 in commemoration of Hans Ji Maharaj, led by his son Guru Maharaj Ji (now Prem Rawat).[64][65]

The sources say:

Navbharat Times, 10 November 1970 (from Hindi original) "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of procession; it culminated in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering".

Hindustan Times, 9 November 1970 (English) "Roads in the Capital spilled over with 1,000,000 processionists; men, women and children marched from Indra Prasha Estate to the India Gate lawn." Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What we have at the moment is: In 1970, many of his new Western followers flew to India to see him, and were present at India Gate, Delhi, when, still only twelve years old, he delivered an address known as the "Peace Bomb," which marked the start of his international work.[21][22]

How about: In 1970, many of his new Western followers flew to India to see him, and were present at India Gate, Delhi, when, still only twelve years old, he delivered an address known as the "Peace Bomb" which marked the start of his international work.[21][22] This address followed an 18-mile-long procession in honor of his father attended by 1,000,000 people, which made it the largest procession ever held in Delhi. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple of points... first off, I recently pasted almost the exact same quote here (as your first one) about there being a million ppl, and you kinda got all up in my face about how it was wrong. <insert "confusing me" template here> So now you think that it could be correct? I'm still thinking it's possible, I just wanna make sure we're on the same page. Also, these sources aren't bad, but I still think we should be able to find an english source too. Especially considering how a lot of his western followers apparently flew there to be at this event. Do you happen to have a copy of Cagan handy, if we're going to find a rosy review of it somewhere, we might as well start there (assuming we can also verify anything she says). I can't get my hands back on Cagan for probably a week. I also think we're a little early to look at the exact text we're going to use until we have finished looking for sources, but in general I think we can tighten it up a little, I like the content, but I would also like to have a little bit about what exactly the peace bomb was. Do we know specifically what he talked about? why is it called a bomb? We could probably just shorten your addition to something like "the address was attended by estimates of up to 1,000,000 people" (I'm not suggesting adding exactly this yet). The logistics of holding a million ppl anywhere aren't too important, so chop the 18 miles, and I think the million speaks for itself in terms of largest processions. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the unbounded freedom with which Indian culture quotes numbers, I do doubt that figure, but that's just me. The sources say a million, and the 18 miles gives some credibility to it, as it works out at 35 people per metre of road, which would be about right. I think it was just wordplay, calling it a "bomb." At the time (rather like this time) there was a lot of fear around about military mega-weapons, and he was saying there is also a bomb of peace, which he was about to bring to the world. But he spoke in Hindi on Indian subjects using a lot of metaphor, so we would need a secondary source to comment on his words, even if we can find some of them. I will look at Cagan tonight. I think Reinhart Hummel also mentions this event. I doubt greatly whether any English language reporter heard about it. Rumiton (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot in Cagan, and some mentions in Hummel. You opened this can, and the label clearly said, "Worms," are you sure you want to do this? I don't want to waste a couple of weeks for no important outcome like I just watched happen above. Demanding more non-Cagan English sources for a 42 years ago Indian occurrence doesn't look very promising. Anyway, here is the origin of "Peace Bomb." Apparently it's from a speech he made when 9 years old in Delhi in 1967. Love is the essence. Inside us there is something that can spread peace among the whole world. I feel it is a peace bomb. Like an atom bomb can spread terror and can kill people, there is something that can bring peace. But until we know its mystery, we cannot achieve it. One has to realise that secret. Rumiton (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Cagan confirms that he didn't address and couldn't have addressed that many people. (I've seen him address >300,000. That was a staggering sea of humanity, and he used modern sound and video gear in a purpose-built auditorium.) The million (if true) were there for the parade. She says he addressed, "Upwards of 100,000." Rumiton (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not really looking for more worm-age either. I maybe should clarify, I just was looking to add a *little* more, like a sentence, two tops, not a paragraph. And while I'm not opposed to using Cagan as a starting point, I'd really rather not use her for anything that isn't available elsewhere, but I think we already knew that. Do you have the speech in the original language? Maybe some other wiki-editor (non-involved) can translate it for us? (also, I liked the part you translated above, thanks) Or is it really long? I know I don't have a problem quoting a small portion of the speech here if we think it would help the article. As for wasting 2 weeks, if it was just you and I, we could probably arrive at a consensus, but *shrug*, it's not. I have a few other places I can check for sources this week too. -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Hummel pretty much confirms Cagan, but adds an important caveat:

Der oft zitierte Satsang des Sohnes vom November 1970 am India Gate in Delhi, der später sogenannte Peace-Bomb-Satsang, der den Aufbruch in den Westen ankündigte, enthielt noch eine Reihe von Aussagen, die nur auf Hinduistischem Hintergrund verständlich sind.

The often quoted satsang of the son [Prem Rawat] in November 1970 at the India Gate in Delhi, later called the Peace Bomb Satsang, which heralded his departure to the West, contains a number of statements which may only be understood against a background of Hinduism. So I hope you weren't looking for any juicy, cross-cultural mischief making? A world of shame on my head for even thinking that! So...what kind of information were you looking for? Rumiton (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I just think it seems like it was an important thing and I thought we could flesh it out a tad, but I gotta say you're kinda discouraging that idea in me a little. I don't want to have a section with a backdrop on hinduism just to have to explain his speech, and I don't want to have a paragraph about it either. I think this period for PR was uhm... uncontroversial and pure of message for PR (if anyone (ya, you! [no, not *you*]) takes that in any way other than the best possible way, that's not the way I meant it, so don't get all excited about it. I mean it. Even the little bit you quoted above, I liked. hmm... I have an idea, but I have to go investigate it a little more, we may be able to not mess things up...*smack* forgot where I was...someone will object, but I'll go look into my idea anyway...more soon. -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you/we/someone have a sourced picture of the peace bomb rally? -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was some footage in one of the old movies made. But I can't recall any stills. Rumiton (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking like either adding some kind of infobox, or maybe replacing a pic, with a pic of this event, and that section of the speech above, unless someone thinks it's wrong, or objects and we have to talk for weeks So a pic, captioned something like:
"...Love is the essence. Inside us there is something that can spread peace among the whole world. I feel it is a peace bomb. Like an atom bomb can spread terror and can kill people, there is something that can bring peace...", Prem Rawat gives his famous Peace Bomb speech in front of 100's of thousands in Delhi, 1970".

It's just my opinion, but if we're replacing a pic in the article, the pic currently in the 60's section makes him look a little stephen hawking-ish imo. I'm thinking like an overhead crowd shot at the stage, that kind of concept... hate it already? -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove that shot. It might not be all that photogenic but it was taken just a couple of days after his father died, and says a real lot about him at that time. If we can find a Peace Bomb pic that tells a similar story, then great. More good pics = better. I can see the whole article growing quite a bit soon, with the Indian sources coming up, and possibly a hived-off TPRF page. Rumiton (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the quote above was actually given, as I said, three years before the Peace Bomb Procession, at an earlier event in Delhi. No problem with using it, so long as we give the correct provenance. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad, I like that quote. This must be the worm-y part you referred to, I don't see the article growing quite a bit soon, unless you know there's a lot of new and important stuff that's coming up, moreso than the prison program stuff (which, as a reminder, we'd already agreed upon a sentence till it was..uhm... hijacked). I don't think we'd need more than 1 picture for the 60's, definitely not more than 2. If you're going to spin off a TPRF article, this article might consequently shrink a little bit even. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that quote is usable. It was the basis for the Peace Bomb, the taking of the experience he talks about to the world. The procession was just when he confirmed he was ready to go. I do have, as I said, quite a bit of new stuff awaiting translation. Rumiton (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "new and important stuff." Would you call multiple media coverage of events in excess of 450,000 several years in a row "important stuff"? I think I would. Re Peace Bomb. Without adding anything to the 60's, there is a fair-sized block of prose in the 70-73 section that could use a good pic to break it up. Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this really is opening up a can or worms. "The Peace Bomb" satsang was originally transcribed for and published in And It Is Divine, a production by Divine Light Mission. See full transcript here. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/pbs.htm#top Sylviecyn (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think we should quote the bit where he says - "So obey my command, or else you will be drowned". PatW (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's 7:38am, and you just made me snort my coffee!

Please tell me at least one of these things is true...

It doesn't really say that
You don't really think we should add that part
You were just being funny

? I guess I'm off to read, without drowning... in my coffee! -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, well...that was... something. It does say that...which makes me think the other 2 might not be true either...*pssssht!*...that was the vacuum-seal on that can...uhm...well ok, here's where I start with this. First of all, that's just someone's typed text, I noticed 2 typos, and it's not attributed to AIID, so unless there's a scan of the page with attribution too, I don't think it's usable at all (unless everyone here wants to stipulate that it's accurate (see? I can be funny in the morning too!)). I did appreciate the link though, and I have strong suspicions that, typos aside, it's accurate. Sometimes around here I only feel half a step ahead of Steve C., so that was enlightening (uhm, pun intended? you decide). The first part that caught my attention was the text "But when the Lord saw that the troubles... had reached the final point...[he] manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world"and I wasn't too crazy about "If I ask you to cut your head for Guru Maharaj Ji, you should do it and offer it to Him on a plate. You should sacrifice every drop of blood" either. I did like his scorpion tale though. Silly me, I was kind of under the impression that this Peace Bomb would be uncontroversial stuff, all about peace, and who could have a problem with peace? Anyway, before Rumiton and I argue back and forth for way too long before arriving and any kind of consensus, only to have someone else come in and knock it all apart, is it safe to say that this is going to be giant fight if we want to add some of this text into the article? What about the quote from 3 years earlier that Rumiton pasted above (in this section)?

Also, Rumiton, I think that chunk of text would be a good place to have a picture of PR from the Millenium event, since it's right in the middle of that text, or if that's a problem, I've seen lots of 70's leisure suit shots of PR too that would do just as well. Any thoughts? (I'd prefer something from Millenium myself). -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the coffee. I think you're starting to see now why Rawat and his followers are embarrassed about the past. It's very interesting to see someone attempting to get to grips with this who has had no personal involvement with the subject for a change. I am very interested to see you discover stuff that you think is relevant. Of course critics of Rawat have been keen to include all sorts of material like this, that was eventually disallowed or removed by followers -mostly in the days when Jossi ruled the roost here. Since then the article has basically been stuck in 'stalemate' resulting in a fragmented and (as has been oft noted) a bizarelly incomplete, compromised picture. I think Will and others have felt that the article is better left alone rather than have the inevitable ad nauseam warring that Momento seems to want to re-ignite. I suppose premies naturally want to chip away with edits that suit their POV and add all Rawat's latest achievements which they see as more relevant than the past. But I'm sure they will strongly resist the re-opening of this "can of worms" which as far as they're concerned is potentially negative..PatW (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Embarrassed? An eight year old takes control of an obscure Hindu sect and within 10 years has turned it into the fastest growing NRM in the 70s with a presence in more than 50 countries! .Momento (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DId I say 'embarrassed about ALL ASPECTS of the past' ? I obviously meant just the embarrassing bits :-) PatW (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How embarrassing! Of course "Embarrassed about the past" mean "all aspects of the past". Otherwise you'd use a qualifier like "some" or "parts". And I'd be embarrassed again if I said "so and so is embarrassed about the embarrassing bits" since "embarrassing bits" can't exist without the "embarrassment". Obvious now, isn't it.Momento (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So, again, are there any editors here who object to looking into adding part/s of this "Peace Bomb" speech into the article? It was kind of a yes/no question ppl. If we can keep this discussion on point (ie, about the article, not about what each editor feels, or wants to say about the other editors), it will probably help with the civility (Hi, I'm the black pot, not the kettle!), AGF and general productivity. Also, I addressed a picture question to Rumiton above, but I guess really it was to any/everyone to discuss, I was just continuing the dialog between R and I (I being me!). -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for something to be added but only if it reflects the reality of what he did after the PB, that is, take his message to the world.Momento (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is only a question about whether or not you are opposed to using it at all, after that, is an area of concern for when we deal with the "after that" part of the article. Like Rumiton said, I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time on this if it's going to devolve into weeks of fighting for no productive end. So if it's a non-starter for anyone, no matter what, I'd just like to know that up front if possible. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article already covers the main point which is it marks the beginning of his international work. I'm more interested in the new stuff Rumiton has uncovered.Momento (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Aarrgh, I just had an edit conflict and lost everything I spent 40 minutes writing. That doesn't always happen, but today it did. It was so freaking witty too, and covered all the points raised above. Anyway, I hope to get translations from Hindi done of the above articles soon. Shoot. Rumiton (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are these Hindi sources from? And what are they regarding? -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

They were sent to me without comment, and are all in Hindi. They appear to be front pages from major Delhi newspapers and show pics of Prem Rawat addressing huge groups of people in Delhi. They are all from 2009, but now that I have some idea how to Google in foreign scripts we should be able to get more. I want to get them translated to make sure they are what they appear to be before I post them anywhere. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In answer to Maelefique - No I don't object as long as the PB satsang is not mined for something too toned down. This speech was notable for the 12 year old Rawat's confident and 'prophetic' proclamations about bringing peace to the world and his announcing himself publicly as a divine incarnation in the league of Krishna Rama etc. To summarise that it just "marks the beginning of his international work" is way too coy. The speech is chock-full of intentionally intimidating religiosity that I would object being omitted as it set the tone of 'surrender the reins of your life to "Maharaj ji" that Rawat continued in full-spate to advocate throughout the seventies and beyond. What we should be looking for is proper references in books from the time that illustrate that it was an important declaration of his divine power and authority. If I can find I will link. PatW (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievably, another edit conflict. Didn't lose it this time. Regarding your other question above, the worms may be getting wormier and are starting to bite. Someone who apparently used to work in the EV archives just e-mailed me that the Peace Bomb address was quite impromptu, and was never written down by anyone at the time, but was pieced together from peoples' recollections afterwards. The most known version was created and distributed by a guy called C.L.Tandon, who was a strong Hindu and close to Prem Rawat's mother, who was likewise religiously inclined. He wrote several intellectual books about Prem Rawat's father. To me this explains the tonal differences I see in the accepted version, compared to other speeches he made at that time and since, and especially the long and precise quotes from Kabir and Tulsidas, the Ramayana and others. Prem Rawat has never tried to quote scriptures at length like that, it is the mark of the Hindu intellectual, which he is not. And quotes from a WWII Indian revolutionary, Subash Chandra Bose from a 12-year-old? I believe this is an adult speaking, postfact.

Anyway, whoever wrote that stuff, maybe it still needs some analysis. Remembering Hummel's warning above about trying to interpret statements made to an Indian audience through the prism of Western ideology, consider these things. The word God, to a Hindu, means a power, not a person. The only personifications of God are the deities (or gods), of which there are hundreds, and some of them not even very nice. God is the power which can be experienced within, which is always kind and tolerant. He calls the power variously, God, the Lord and Guru Mahaharaj Ji (his father). When he says (if he did) that he had that power, that is what he meant. Regarding the blood-curdling exhortations, Mataji was always fond of warning people of dire karmic fates if they ignored her son, until, of course, she started to ignore him herself. The idea of "drowning" is vintage Hinduism or Sant Matism. The allusion is to Maya, the idea that we are living in a dangerous mirage, that "we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us." This is not a controversial idea to many Indians. They do not ask "Is this true?" they ask "How can I escape beiong drowned by this situation?" and they look to gurus, schools of spiritual learning and masters to show them a way. Even if well translated, this subject appears kind of out-there to westerners, but it is orthodox Hinduism, familiar to Indian schoolkids.

Looking at the above, I am not sure it is worthwhile continuing. We are spending time on what is, at best, a primary document, and at worst a forgery.

But to answer your earlier question, Yes if we can find a good, public domain or donated pic that illustrates the quote from 1967, I think that would be a good improvement to the article. Rumiton (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing on your 'deconstructive analysis' tack (with which I pretty much wholly concur) a professor of religion (who has been to events in India) informs me that the large numbers of people at current Rawat events are decidedly not a true indication of his followers. Apparently in India the attitude of the vast majority of the impoverished masses is to 'cover themselves' as regards their future salvation, by paying deference to, and attending as many Guru events as possible. Especially if it's a good party and they get fed! Therefore a huge proporation of the people going to see Rawat in India are just there for insurance purposes and, rather like Mata Ji in your example, can switch their apparently sincere religious adherence to a particular guru when it suits them. So I hope you recognise that the numbers game in India, when used as evidence of Rawat's current popularity there, is meaningless for the same reasons you yourself seem to acknowledge.PatW (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, whilst I agree with you that the Indians are essentially somewhat hypocrites when it comes to practicing what they preach, I fail to see why you don't include Rawat in that categorisation. For a start he went on to require a vow of 'obedience' (it was a necessary to receiving Knowledge for decades after) and to preach absolute 'surrender' as was born out by his advocacy of ashrams etc. Also he and his family never viewed themselves as having to make the 'spiritual' sacrifices they advocated for others. There is a ton of sources that describe this - particularly Sophie Collier. PatW (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your idea that the teacher must do everything he asks of the student is really novel. The driving teacher drives alone therefore he's a hypocrite because he insists that learner be accompanied? The owner of the restaurant doesn't wash the dishes, therefore he's a hypocrite? Are you sure you've thought this through? Momento (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable point, Momento. And to Pat - personally, I also agree with your professor. I wouldn't want to express it too strongly, but an Australian chap I know who spends a lot of time in India told me "There are two masters in India. One is the guru, the other is the eldest brother." He was saying that there are social and familial obligations in India that are rigid, and people are not free agents there, the way we are in the West. People tend to stick up a picture of their parents' or employer's guru, and among the entirely sincere who knows how many less so there may be? There are no free meals given out at events, that is not how it works, but these other hidden forces mean that the presence of 450,000 people at an event in Delhi cannot be directly equated with that number anywhere else. Yet they do come, (I've seen them), and the Indian press apparently has found it noteworthy. I don't agree the numbers are "meaningless", just that we can't say how many of the audience were really sincere. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup - thought this one through. Most driving teachers have learned to drive very much as their pupils. Not Prem Rawat - he never lived in ashram or gave anything up in his entire life - quite the opposite. As far as I'm concerned much of what Rawat 'taught' in the seventies was a total waste of time (for me personally at least) and often amounted to an abuse of trust. It was less about teaching people anything worthwhile and more about his arrogant ideas of his own divinity and how people should surrender to him and respect him. What strikes me is - here's a narcissistic guy (totally typical of Indian gurus BTW) who is completely seduced by the trappings of the west, wealth, cars, planes, girls, power, respect etc who could never live a 'renunciate' lifestyle himself. I can't think of a better example of a hypocrite. The only thing Rawat has done that approximates to teaching is to advocate a lifestyle that revolves around meditation and devotion to him. If that's what people enjoy and want then they're welcome to it. I tried it and concluded that it sucked, was boring as hell and has nothing to do with 'divinity' whatsoever. Probably much the same conclusions Rawat has come to which is why he never practised what he preached. PatW (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[6] Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

lol! Ya. On other notes, regarding the "do as I say, not as I do" disconnect, I think even children see the hypocrisy in parents who smoke but tell their kids not to. Sure, smoking is bad, not smoking is better, but it would be hard to believe that God told me to tell everyone not to smoke, but he didn't mean me personally, just all of you. Or would you say that because of his "special access" (call it what you like instead, deeper understanding?) that it was part of the plan for PR to have different rules? Rumiton, how do you characterize the part where he says "But when the Lord saw that the troubles... had reached the final point...[he] manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world"? That doesn't seem out of context (Indian/Western), but it does seem to contradict all the times where he's avoided direct and simple answers to the question "are you claiming to be God?" (usually with some kind of statement, or parable, or metaphor, that leaves it ambiguous in the cases I've seen). If we have a scan of the page from AIID, I think it would have to be accepted that this is what he said (or at least, that's what he said he said), regardless of what any "secret source" from WOPI (nee EV) had gleaned from their archives. Also, I think everyone here would have to agree (but probably won't), that a source from WOPI/EV is certainly not going to be unbiased, and is only going to provide what they think is going to put PR in the very best light, that's a bit of a problem I think, in terms of credibility. On a similar note, (and not necessarily article-related!) I had dinner with some Indian friends (omg, best butter chicken ever!) who were in India in the 70's, and I had some questions about honorifics and things, they already knew of PR, and didn't have rosy things to say. Admittedly, they didn't have many good things to say about Indian gurus in general even though they both are quite religious. I'm not going to use them as a source either.

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

You are confusing ashram living requirements with what was required just to receive Knowledge. The ashram requirements for clean living were for practical reasons. Try yourself to share a house with a bunch of drinkers and smokers and you will see why. Otherwise there were no injunctions at all in that area and there still are not. I will not try to analyse anything in the "Peace Bomb Satsang" as I am now entirely convinced it was written by an ambitious 50-year-old Hindu in the service of his mother. Out it goes. Let's look at 2ndary sources. Incidentally, I now understand why people questioned his age back then. If you watch the actual vids from those days, like the second half of this one, taken just a few months after the Peace Bomb, he is obviously a young kid with an urgent message. It was all the bogus politico-religious crap that other guy put in that made them wonder. Rumiton (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asking about that one passage in particular, the other part was referring to the Momento/PatW comments. So are you saying now that you don't think he said all that stuff? In which case, we should just remove it from the article? Or, only the controversial stuff isn't from him, and it should stay in the article? -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying we should stick with secondary sources, which is pretty much what we have right now. Rumiton (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

[ Glastonbury Video It's truly scary and disgusting the way premies spam these kinds if videos with 'pro Rawat' comments and vote off any perceived negative ones. What a bunch of sinister religious maniacs. It's like a cult conspiracy gone mad. Whatever happened to tolerating different views? Re "bogus politico-religious crap" - it's possible but it's still just your conviction. DLM published the so-called transcript and moreover Rawat NEVER disclaimed any of that did he?PatW (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

i do appreciate the effort you make to over come your issues.Momento (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A long time ago someone started the Prem Rawat Wikiquote page. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat and it was agreed that there was no way editors would be able to agree upon Rawat quotes in this article. This is such a waste of time. Quote mining doesn't work when it comes to the controversial subjects, especially this one. There are, for instance, plenty of secondary sources that have published Rawat's more controversial statements. The Peace Bomb satsang is one of his most controversial speeches because Rawat declared he would establish peace on Earth, and stated that if people gave him the reins of their lives he would give them peace. Come on now...The Peace Bomb has been discussed here ad nauseum. I suggest folks move on. :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On. That's where I'm moving. On. Rumiton (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji

Rethinking this, there is a disambig page which allows the reader to choose which Guru Maharaj Ji they want to look at, so they won't get to this page anyway. The name Prem Rawat doesn't have any connection with him, so we probably don't need another link on top of this page. Thoughts? Rumiton (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. PLease take it out.Momento (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, please leave it in Surdas (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a very convincing counterargument for Wikipedia. Any good reasons why it should remain? Rumiton (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at other articles, it's odd that we have NIgerian GMJ on this article page. I couldn't find a GMJ (disambiguation) page only I straight redirect to PR's page.Momento (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a disambig page for Guru Maharaj Ji, but either it has been removed or I thought wrong. It is obviously needed. I never started one before, but I will try now. Rumiton (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read up on it. Problem is that the Nigerian guy is only known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" not "Maharaj Ji" or "Maharaji", of which there are several, and certainly not "Prem Rawat", of which there is only one. We need to figure out at which point a disambig is needed. I will look again tonight. Rumiton (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The should be a page that looks like this -

(TITLE)

Guru Maharaj Ji (disambiguation)

(TEXT)

Guru Maharaj ji may refer to:

This is another WBB legacy.Momento (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We also need to include Neem Karoli Baba and Satpal Maharaj, both known as Guru Maharaj Ji. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GMJ doesn't appear in either article.Momento (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

They are both gurus addressed as Maharaj Ji, so it seems likely people will Google "Guru Maharaj Ji". Anyway, I created the disambig. We can see if it lives, and if so, delete the redirect and edit this disambig if necessary. Rumiton (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stats:

About 65,300 results for: "guru maharaj ji" -Prem -Rawat

(note that about 30% of these results appear to be Prem Rawat too, but they only use his other titles/aliases)

About 125,000 results for: "Guru Maharaj Ji"

Which means, that, at least according to Google, Prem Rawat is the prominent result over 50% of the time, and all the others fill in the remainder. It seems to me, based on reading the WP:PRIME section of WP:D, there should not be a disambiguation page, it should be a hat at the top of our page here. (WP:PRIME goes on to say that it should be discussed here first) The tools provided at that page to help decide if it's a primary topic also point to our article here being a primary, the great majority of linked articles point back here, and the traffic stats for "Prem Rawat" and "Guru Maharaj Ji", show a huge precedence in the amount of traffic to "Prem Rawat". Opinions? (On an unrelated note, that Nigerian article is terribly written!). -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested hat:

Although, I must say, while I don't object to the hat per se, I have to say that I'm not crazy about how it looks format-wise, could be just me though... -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I way prefer disambig pages, hatnotes clutter the page and distract the reader. So I created a disambig page for Guru Maharaji Ji, and it appears to have passed new article review. But a Bot has suggested that page be merged with Maharaji (disambiguation). I have followed the Bot's advice to discuss the merge here [7] but on this subject I am hampered by the fact that I don't know what I am talking about. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact right way to go either, but right now there's a different disambig page for "Maharaji", "Maharaj Ji", "Maharaj-ji" and "Maharaj ji" and they are all different. That seems... uhm, dumb. It would be be less so, if all those pages had the same people listed, but of course, they don't. One disambig, and 3 redirects I would think would be the correct way to go, and then list all the people on all the pages on the disambig page. There's more than 4 possibilities in total now, which the style guide says is the point where you should use a disambig page instead of a hat. Anyone disagree? -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the four (and I agree there must be a better way) is that people looking for the Nigerian guy will only spell it Guru Maharaj Ji, and people looking for Neem Baba will probably spell it Maharaj Ji or Maharaj-ji. People looking for Prem Rawat might spell it any of the ways. Is it possible for one disambig page to collect all these versions and list all the possible subjects? IOW, can we redirect all these optional spellings to the one disambig page? Actually I am sure we can, I just don't know how. Rumiton (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea I was trying to convey. Make the other 3 pages redirects, and collect all of them on 1 disambig page. I just didn't want to do all that to those pages only to find out that there was an objection, or that "Maharaj Ji" is not the same as "Maharaj ji" for some important reason. Suggestions for which disambig page to keep? (I suppose it doesn't matter *too* much, since they will all end up at the same place) but I would think keep "Maharaj Ji". -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any objection. Important thing is that people get AQAP to the one they were looking for and we don't get pages cluttered up by big hatnotes. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree and that "Maharaj Ji" is the page to keep.Momento (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what happens when a hat gets too big. [8] (This is an Australian joke. It is an Australian politician, which is the same thing.) Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll edit the main disambig page, and create all the redirects tonight, I am thinking I'll make PR the first entry (as he's most likely to be the target), and the rest of the entries alphabetically. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done, sir. How will you delete the current disambigs? Will you not need an admin? Rumiton (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just finishing up some work on another article, and then I'll get on to these, but I don't think so, I think I just have to add the correct code to change them to redirects from disambigs. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

well that was fun and new, all pages disambiguated into one disambiguation page, the text of which, is probably not perfect by everyone's definition, but at least we don't have 4 different pages with 4 different names anymore. -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I think it means we still need the small hat note at the top of our article, since Guru Maharaj Ji redirects directly back to us...unless we want to add "Guru Maharaj Ji" to the disambig page? (I'm thinking not). -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Would that be a problem? Then we can add the Nigerian chap to the disambig page and nobody needs to go through a hatnote. Rumiton (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think many people (some, to be sure) would look for Prem Rawat under Guru Maharaj Ji these days. Rumiton (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem, but I thought it was a term that was going to get ppl here excited about if I started a page that gave an indication that someone else might also have that name. But if you're ok with it, I'm ok with it... although I might wait to here what the almost certain dissenting voice/s will say, just in case they have a valid point we've missed :) . -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The point you've missed, once again, is that you are still playing catch up to ideas I proposed days ago. March 16 to be exact, when I proposed calling the disambiguation page "Guru Maharaj JI".Momento (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how embarassing, the "voice/s" I was referring to, weren't you. But thank you for constructively joining the conversation. I will, in response, *not* take you off my list of people that won't object to that disambig page.

Witty reparté aside, we're actually discussing including your suggested name inside the disambig page of "Maharaj Ji", not on a disambig page called "Guru Maharaj JI" (as you suggested, rumor has it, on March 16th [full disclosure, I have not checked the diffs for the acccuracy of that statement]), just so I'm clear, you're ok with this new idea too? -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to hearing from your other voices.Momento (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this: "Looking forward to hearing from your other voices Nik. Momento (talk) 20:41 March 2012 (UTC)", if you're actually thinking I'm a sock, then a) grow a pair and speak up, and b) pick someone who at least speaks english well, that is by far the most insulting part! -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how embarassing, the "voice/s" I was referring to, weren't you.Momento (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No embarrassment here, had you read my words, you'd see that I said "if", and btw, you use quote marks to indicate an exact quote, you didn't say "voice/s", I did, but you still get a half point for trying. -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's it for the pleasantries, I just added the Nigerian GMJ to the disambig page, and took away the hatnote. How does one now change the redirect for Guru Maharaj Ji to send it to the disambig page? Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem R, I'll set that up. -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Watkins' Mind Body Spirit magazine

I see this month's issue [9] has rated Prem Rawat as 90th on its top 100 of the world's currently most spiritually influencial people. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it the first time ever?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find that out. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just spent some more time on it. Prem Rawat appears to have been nominated for the first time in 2011, after the first edition of the list was published, and he is included now in the 2012 list. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, let's add it to the article. Any objections? "In March 2012, Rawat was rated 90th in Watkins' Mind Body Spirit Magazine list of "The 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People." PatW (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that will make most of us happy. I am happy that he was noticed and included, and you are happy he came in 90th. Rumiton (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

haha, that was funny R! I've never heard of the magazine, so I would suggest wikilinking it, as we do have an article on it. And where would you suggest we put that? (I don't have an objection to adding it, but I would like to have it put in an appropriate place). -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My first genuine LOL in ages. I'm lucky I caught this classic comment from Rumiton as I don't visit here much any more. It is so ironic and sarcastic and also probably truthful at the same time - brilliant! Savlonn (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps just on the end of the 1983 to present section. With a wikilink, OK. As I said before, if my translator eventually comes up with the goods on the Indian programs we will probably need to create a separate 2000's section anyway. Rumiton (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not happy to include a non-academic opinion that has been created by the publisher for the titillation of its readers.Momento (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, let's get it all in ..the Indian programs , the lot. Why not I say! ....And I knew that Rumiton and you would disagree on this. Momento probably because he (or is it 'she?') has Jossi over his shoulder, panicking on the behalf of 'publicity-shy' Rawat being ranked alongside a bunch of mere mortals, and Rumiton... well he's just a bit more honest and wants to see Rawat's achievements properly represented. Rumiton, you're wrong about me being happy he came in 90th . I'd be delighted if he was number one. I want Rawat to be more famous and to have more light shed on him. You guys will always be compromised in the most comedic fashion as to whether Rawat's achievements serve him well or threaten to over-expose him. Meanwhile I guess we should do everything 'by the book'.

Momento- since when does Wikipedia have to comprise entirely academic opinion? You know as well as I that these NewAge types take the whole spiritual thing deadly seriously. I'm sure the list's aim is to inform not to "titillate". You're just too narrow-minded about what is 'Spiritual'. Didn't you know that once aliens came to earth and imparted spiritual Knowledge? It's not just Rawat you know. That's why Erich Von Daniken's on the list. This is serious. PatW (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure you are serious about finding this subject serious. "The first biography of Aleister Crowley mentions that Crowley made all of the books in Watkins disappear and magically reappear." I am sure that if they were your occult books, and represented your entire stock in trade, your seriousness would become much more serious. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Momento, you do not know him (he is a he.) I have known Momento for nearly 40 years and he is a wild and crazy man, most unlikely to do anything Jossi, or anyone else, requests of him. I, OTOH, am a most amenable person, open to almost any suggestion. But I never get any, so I pretty much do and say what I like. When I Skyped TPRF for some extra information about the prison program, I was told the person I needed to talk to was now in Ghana or somewhere, installing some faucets, but he would be back in early September. I get the impression that nobody in TPRF or WOPG or in any way connected to Prem Rawat gives a flying turnip what gets said on this article or anywhere on the Internet. They take a positivist approach; that people will listen to his words and make up their own mind about his message. They may well be right, but I think I will stick around, it can be quite entertaining. And I do thoroughly believe in the Wikipedia democratic philosophy and am fascinated with how it is evolving. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So, Momento...have your objections been overcome? Can we put this sentence into the article? Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I think it is a useless bit of trivia that has no substance, as relevant as "Named in the top 100 Shortest Indians".Momento (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Brussels one more

The thread is already archived, but the discussion may linger in some's mind, so here is some pretty raw primary material for everybody's own judgement (not that I request changes in the article): http://www.tprf.org/en/news/videos--Rainer P. (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's http://www.tprf.org/en/news/videos -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, sorry.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Too long

I think this piece is much too long and we should remove the material in bold - "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash (and) jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared.[38][39] Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.”[40] A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts.[41] The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas were investigated by the Indian government.[42] In June 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country.[43] Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology.[44][45]".Momento (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree it is an over-emphasis. Rumiton (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We were all here, (including those of us who aren't here anymore), when this was discussed, at length, ad nauseum, (and pretty much ad infinitum!)and eventually agreed upon. Other than your feeling that it's too long, do you have anything new to present on this discussion that would suggest we should look at it all over again? I have seen it come up in numerous articles about PR, and I think this section is worth keeping, specifically because of the quote from PR himself, it has a good resonance with the "peace bomb" reference too. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, accepted this elaboration fairly reluctantly. For me was in the same category as the helipad negotiations with the local fire brigade, but the obsession with trivia displayed by the media of the day was cited as the reason it had to be included. Because it was noticed, trivia became somehow elevated. I can sort of see that. It opens up an interesting new avenue now, where we have major national newspapers in India over the last ten years, quoting extensively from his speeches, as well as giving details of the venue and the event organisation, and the size (enormous) and composition (often distinguished) of his audience. I am sure the same respect for sources will be applied when I finish getting them translated. I have 2009 and 2012 done so far. Rumiton (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's another left over from WBB when positive stuff had to be added to counter the obsession with negative trivia. The whole incident can be succinctly and neutrally covered with "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash and jewelry which they said had not been properly declared.[38][39] Charges were never filed and the Indian government later issued an apology."Momento (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you about the helipad. Look forward to putting some new stuff in.Momento (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, blaming it on WBB seems easy enough, regardless of that, if there's nothing new to add to the argument, and I agree it was big news to the worldwide english media at the time, unless that has changed, I don't see why we would change our coverage of what happened; that's all we're supposed to be doing here. It was big news at the time, it's reported in the article as big news at the time. Seems pretty consistent. I would most strongly oppose the quote from Rawat being removed as well, this article is about him, I think we should at least allow him to speak in his own defense now and then!

Also we were also all here for the helipad debate, and while I don't agree that any previous consensus is binding on future decisions, unless there's something new about those situations, I don't see how we could fail to arrive right back where we are now, seems to me, we hashed both of these things out, *very* thoroughly, did we miss something?

Regarding Rumiton's continuously threatened articles in translation

, I have nothing to say about them until they are presented, at which time I'm sure I'll have an opinion, although I will say that without any 3rd party coverage in english, notability and a few other factors are a little bit more of an uphill battle, but I'm sure you realize that too. -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's good enough for WBB to dredge up obscure opinions from discredited Dutch speaking Roman Catholic priests, there can be no problems for independent Hindi speaking newspapers. As for the "smuggling" and the "helipad", you can't have it both ways. The helipad was a trivia piece in the LA Times, hardly notable news. The "smuggling" incident was big news because of the inherent bias of the media who always highlighted anything negative about PR. It must be in the article but it is undeniably too long particularly since the outcome was an apology. As for more quotes from PR, there are dozens of more important ones that should go in.Momento (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is verbiage, it adds nothing to our understanding of the subject. But threatened? Maelefique, threatened? Not all all. Promised is the right word, and I regret it is taking so long. I could post what I have now, but I am still checking the sources, venues, dates and some other details. Also having a problem with something called "docx". It seems that India runs on a unique version of Word but I have downloaded a program that handles most of the pages. The foreign language thing should not be a problem, as we can post the original Hindi with the photos next to the translation so it can be easily checked. Rumiton (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the newspaper articles from 2009. They are displayed by RVK, Prem Rawat's ashram in Delhi, but they are verifiably articles by attending reporters from major Indian news media. Let's not waste our time trying to claim they are press releases. Taken with the pics, he clearly was there at these events, and so were 50,000 to 450,000 people, and they came to see him. He was not, as a previous editor (what was that guy's name?) suggested, possibly a sound technician, setting up the stage for some Indian rock band. I have English translations of most of these news articles ready now, as I said. Rumiton (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is justifyable to put the details of this whole hot air smuggling issue into a footnote and leave a statement in the article close to Momento's suggestion. Thus those wonderful details can be saved and the article would aqppear more substantial.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we can remove the smuggling trivia but can't put them in a footnote, I'll count your comment as agreement to remove the superfluous detail. Although I might wait to hear what the almost certain dissenting voice/s will say, just in case they have a valid point we've missed.Momento (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

~~It's self-evidently an improvement to the article, and only a totally one-eyed turkey would disagree with it.~~ Yes, let's wait to hear what other editors have to say.Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

R, I was totally kidding about "threatened", that's why I put in the happy face, I hope you didn't take that one too seriously. And while I'm here to deal with the "shots" that editors are going to take at me, I think it's a little low to take shots at editors who are not here. That certainly has not been done with others who had to leave the article (with the exception of Jossi, and I do *not* see these two cases as equal, maybe you do). I would suggest focusing on the edits instead? Momento, saying that what Rainer said won't work, and so therefore he agrees with you, is not correct. Can you post your suggested edit here so we can discuss it speccifically, instead of generally where its more difficult to get at the details? Also, why can't we put them in a footnote? (I'm not suggesting we should, I'm just asking why you think we can't). Oh, and good work sneaking in that "voice/s" again, now you can use quote marks! full point!

Biased editors always use terms like "what I'm doing is self-evidently better", anyone ever notice that? It's usually a sign that it isn't, otherwise the argument would speak for itself.(are we going to have a separate chat via strike-out now too? It'll be like code, I'm excited, and no one will know what we're saying, cool!) -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Leave it the way it is because we have already covered this. Please move on to something else. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'smuggling' incident hit the news whether we like the or not. I remember this as being one of the first things I read about Rawat. I'd imagine that would apply to plenty of people. Sounds funny now calling him Rawat because he was universally known as Guru Maharaj Ji at the time. So I think the tone of the reporting of the time should be preserved and I think it's only current followers who want to excise all this kind of stuff because they see it as negative publicity. I suspect anyone un-biased would see the value of the verbatim reports. How can you call a major news report 'Trivia' or the detail thereof 'Superfluous'?PatW (talk)

There appears to be a disproportionateness between the pseudo-accuracy of the reported numbers and the fact, that there never was a charge (or am I mistaken there?) and the whole thing had obviously little substance and ended with an embarrassed apology. And though the episode may be significant for showing the style of conclict in the matter, everybody without a negative POV can sense a smear-campaign intention, which should not be perpetuated uncritically on WP. For really historically interested people, a footnote will do. In the article it sounds partisan and is misleading.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a smear campaign to me, and I don't consider myself to have a negative POV. In fact, it's for just that reason that I want to include Rawat's quote, to indicate that he seems to have thought that's all it was too, if he's going to get charged (and I believe he was, if I recall the last time we had this exact same discussion, I thought someone produced a legal document with the charge that was originally applied (and then dropped), but I may be wrong on that point...I haven't gone for an archive swim yet!) and we have his own words about the matter, it seems a little bit confusing why you would want to take his very own words on the matter, out. I think there might be a *little* too much detail, but the reduction that is being proposed here seems a little too extreme to me. I could get behind something more like:

On arrival, Indian customs impounded an undeclared suitcase containing cash and jewelry worth between US$27,000 and $80,000. Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.”[40] A DLM spokesman said that the money and valuables had been pooled by followers, as gifts, to cover expenses.[41] The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India were investigated by the Indian government.[42] Rawat posted a bond and was allowed to leave the country. Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology.

Reduces the original from 143 to 117 words, or 19%, and large majority of what's left is Rawat's own words, and hey, it's an article about him, he should have a chance to speak now and then when we have his words about an issue. Also, if the facts are correct, how could they be misleading? Facts are facts, readers get to decide bias, and again, Rawat's own words should point readers to the conclusion you're trying to push, so I don't know why you'd agree to taking it out anyway. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This controversy was extraordinarily widely reported (link to articles) and even The Times (a reputable newspaper here in the UK) covered the incident, adding 'A high Government source said it was unlikely there would be any prosecution of the guru. But he said the Government was concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad.' Along with all the other articles this high degree of reputable coverage probably amounts to the peak of public interest in him ever in the UK where Guru Maharaj Ji was in the public's attention largely due to the amount of 'public propagation' going on, fly-postering his face around London etc. 'One senior member of the Government said that Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Mission operates, including the United States and Britain, have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. The Government, he said, wants to determine whether the mission is violating Indian law, particularly regarding restrictions on Indian nationals having bank accounts and capital assets abroad.' So the controversy had a serious aspect and was not 'tittle-tattle' or 'a smear campaign' as has been suggested. PatW (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We are getting into discussing several things at once, which is what happens, and I need to be at work right now. But Maelefique, I know you were being light-hearted with your word "threatened" and I tried to respond likewise. Maybe I didn't get it right. But the cases of Jossi and the other editor are absolutely comparable. I don't like grave dancing on anyone, but Jossi apparently used sock puppets to further his point of view, which was bad and he shouldn't have done it. His name now comes up in this article approximately weekly, and those who raise it are never reprimanded. The other editor was found by Arbcom to have misused his admin powers to intimidate editors who disagreed with him by privately messaging other admins and Jim Wales with "information" that was proven by Arbcom to be false, and which he knew to be false. They said he "created an editing atmosphere of fear" which is "contrary to the spirit and intention of Wikipedia."

I played no role in that Arbcom investigation but I had seen this behavior happening. He started a sock puppet investigation on me (which failed) and then "took me to court" where he privately e-mailed the admins on the case, which got me banned for 12 months with no reason given. You yourself said at the time you thought that excessive. I would bet he told the editors I had a COI, for that is what he did in the other cases which were investigated by Arbcom (and it was a lie there, too). When other editors of this article who agreed with his POV seriously and constantly violated civility, he just gave them the mildest possible advice on their talk pages to be more careful. This was a very destructive editor, and one who appears to have admitted no wrongdoing, just to being "over zealous." If he attempts to come back after 6 months I will get very involved in the case. Rumiton (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How come according to you jossi "apparently" did something wrong, but WBB "was found" to be wrong? And that's not what arbcom censured him for, it was for tracking down someone's off-wiki identity, which they said was over-zealous. He did not pretend to be different people in order to skew articles and policies here (and at different notice boards) to his liking, he apparently got a little carried away. However, this is hardly the place for this conversation anyway, oh, and 50% of the times Jossi's been mentioned haven't been by me! :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I said "apparently" because Jossi retired from WP before he could reply to the allegations. But I don't dispute them. Your reducing the behavior of Editor X to "he apparently got a little carried away" is kind of sick-making to someone like me who was victimised by his atrocious behavior (and not just on this article.) Arbcom read a bunch of private info before taking the strong stand they did, and these are smart and honorable people. Among other things they said: "In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Editor X has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views...The frequency of participation [on COI and high profile talk pages] is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment." That is exactly what was happening. Before weeping with sympathy for that guy I suggest you read this carefully. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What you have described PatW is a "smear campaign". An Indian Gov official says "he doubted there would be a prosecution in the customs incident but the Government was concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad" and so they claimed 'a suitcase was undeclared' and used it as a pretext to investigate PR. That gem should be in the article. The Daily Mail also reported "The Indian Special Branch has its own interest in the guru. It fears that with or without the knowledge of the mission's hierarchy, spies or CIA agents might use the security of the mission as a cover. The Indian Home Office is also watching the boy". That also needs to be in.Momento (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And on the subject of "sock puppets", since Wiki policy is "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account", why do you, Maelefique use a special account to edit PR articles?Momento (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I stopped laughing, then I shook my head and actually laughed a little more, as you well know, as I've said several times, and most recently within the last month when Rumiton asked exactly the same thing (again!). The only articles I've ever edited with this account are those that are regarding Rawat, I have another account that I do a lot of editing on, and I choose not to let the idiocy (replace with your own word if you think that's wrong) that goes on here from time to time spilling into my main account, which contains real life information about me. I have never used my other account to edit any article I have touched with this account, or any directly related article that I may not have directly edited with this account even. I have welcomed a checkuser inspection on my accounts, and I have offered to give the necessary information to any uninvolved admin who would like to investigate for themselves. As quoted from WP:sock, "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets." So once again, and still, not a sock, I'll try not to take it personally when you ask me the same thing again next year and pretend not to remember again. -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your main account in your real name? Because if it isn't the above exemption doesn't apply to you.Momento (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

None of your business. Oh, and read it again, because that's not what it says anyway. -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is my business, if you claim the reason you can have two or more accounts is because you are a "long-term contributor using your real name and wishes to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated". In which case the name of your other account is critical. So again, is your main account in your name?Momento (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not Maelefique or sock puppets. If you want to discuss those things please go somewhere else. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with the topic of my accounts. As Sylvie above says, if you have something to discuss, take it to the appropriate place, as far as I'm concerned, it's none of your business, beyond what I've already stated. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What could be a more appropriate place to ask you why you use a separate account for editing the PR article than the talk page of the PR article. Since you won't confirm that your main account is in your real name, as per WP:SOC, it means either it isn't (in which case you shouldn't be using a pseudonymous account) ) or it is but rather than provide that info you would rather "deceive or mislead other editors" (which is the definition of Sock puppetry). Momento (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update of the lead section

I think, meanwhile there should be a sentence in the lead section mentioning Rawat’s humanitarian efforts, corresponding to the articles content, namely the activities of TPRF, like the Peace Education Program, the Food for People Program (which is not directly mentioned in the article, but should be) and the subject’s international engagement for peace through Words of Peace and appearances on political stages. Opinions and ideas?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but last I heard, Rumiton was looking at spinning off an entire TPRF article, and that is probably where that should all go. Since our article only has a few comments about the TPRF, and the article is not about the TPRF, it seems like it would be a little "undue weight" to add even more about TPRF in the lead (it's aready mentioned). Although I would support some discussion about adding WOPI to the lead too, since Elan Vital is now shut down and replaced by them. I suppose if you wanted to add more TPRF to the lead, then the way to go would be to start a discussion about adding more TPRF content into the article but it seems like, again, that would be for a TPRF article, since my understanding is that while PR is associated with TPRF of course, that he is not listed on the board of directors, and I'm unaware of any specific management duties that PR is in charge of, therefore, I thought an article specifically about PR shouldn't dwell overly on TPRF issues. Dwelling on the issue a little further, I wondered how other articles here treated similar individuals, I tried to come up with someone I thought might be in a similar situation (which I characterized for the purposes of finding someone *somehow* comparative as "he did something that received a tremendous amount of media attention, was controversial, then things cooled off, and he shifted to a more moderate public speaker about finding peace, resulting in dramatically less press coverage"), my first thought was Bill Gates, but he was obviously much less important *before* microsoft, so that wasn't a good comparison. I thought about it a little more, and excluded various others for various reasons, and then thought it didn't really matter if what they were famous for was "good" or "bad", as long as the timeline was comparative, since I was only using it for the purpose of seeing how the article was handled/structured. I ended up with Kevin Mitnick, I had never looked at this article before. Similarly to our article, despite the fact that he has since been hired by several very high profile security firms, and now runs his very own security firm, as well as having a very busy speaking engagement schedule like PR (according to his website, he has engagements in Las Vegas, Canton (Ohio), Brisbane (Australia), Syndey, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and Grand Rapids (Michigan), between March and September of this year), the great majority of his [much shorter] article deals with what got him all that press coverage in the first place, not how he is helping corporations protect themselves now (and like here, his company is briefly mentioned in the lead). I see I've rambled a little bit again

. I don't know that I'm going to change anyone's opinion with my train of thought, but I thought I'd share it with you to demonstrate that I don't just knee-jerk dismiss ideas that some here think I may be automatically opposed to. I hope that helped. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. TPRF is actually mentioned in the lead as successor of Divine Light Mission, which is in this context certainly misleading. It is not linked, and there are not even external links. WOPG is not mentioned, although it receives a lot of attention and publicity. OTOH that silly statement about his notorious lack of intellectual substance seems to resist the all-erosive tooth of time, talking of undue weight. A reader who only takes time to read the lead will garner a pretty off-wall image of this living person, don't you agree? And has to do a lot of reading until it can be balanced somewhere at the end of the 2000s. That is my concern. And I sense your intent to keep a possible TPRF-article segregated from the PR-article, is that right? Your comparisons to Gates or Mitnick do not strike me as helpful prototype standards for Rawat, IMO there are not even enough superficial similarities. So, if there will be a seperate article on TPRF, their activities should still be mentioned in the PR-article, too, and also in the lead section.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead is only trying to imply that TPRF came after DLM, which is correct, not that they carry on the exact same goals. Inserting WOPI as I suggested discussing would also cover WOPG wouldn't it? I think the "silly statement" is probably a compromise between people wanting to remove that line completely, even though it's sourced to three high quality academic sources (Melton, Shnabel, and Kent, and is referred to in the teachings section as well), and those who probably wanted to talk about the details of his techniques for Knowledge, which can sound pretty lacking intellectually, when described, and would certainly reflect more negatively than the accurate statement (based on the sources) that is there now, it also ties in directly with the also well-sourced section that describes PR as a Charismatic leader. PR has certainly seemed much less "off-the-wall" since the 2000s, but let's face it, before that, he provided plenty of material all by himself for that view (first thought, anyone that decides his wife is actually an immortal goddess in mortal form, gets a double-take from me). It is not my intent to keep TPRF out of this article, but as Rumiton has said, there is a lot of TPRF material piling up since the last time it was looked at, and I *would* be opposed to a great big section in this article about TPRF, since this article isn't about TPRF. As I said, I did not think Gates was a good prototype either, I only chose Mitnick because of the timeline, "famous, then less famous but still important", I'm not suggesting it's "right" I was just explaining my process, and what led me to my conclusion. I didn't pick Mitnick because I knew about the article (I had never read it before), and it has nothing to do with *what* Mitnick was famous for, purely for the sequence of events and consequent exposure to the media. If there was a separate TPRF article, I would suggest we *briefly* mention them here, with a header in the section saying see main article: TPRF, there's a template for that (like we have in the Teachings section). -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, WOPI(nternational) is really just a transitory predecessor of WOPG(lobal), with no change of goals. (And where did you find that immortal goddess bit? Maybe in the golden toilet? I hope, in case your first name is taken from some ancient holy personage, you don't get confused over that...) As for the contentious lack of intellect, I can't find it in the first footnote (Melton), and I believe no one except the then naive Kent has really uttered this thing in one of his weaker moments. As it holds a little "man-bites-dog"-feel, it may have been reported elsewhere, in lack of a need for more solid information then. To choose this statement of all for the lead appears somewhat picky today, to say the least. It is a good example for disinformation. I simply want to point out the need of improvement in the lead in order to make it represent the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I was using WOPI and WOPG interchangeably, but whichever one is the "correct" one is the one I was referring to adding into the lead, or at least discussing it. It seems minor minor to me, but nothing here ever ends up that way. And if by golden toilet, you mean Wikipedia, then yes, in our DLM article it refers to "He called his wife "Durga Ji", after the Hindu goddess Durga" and I would have to go do some research to remember where I read about it in more detail, but I'm usually of the opinion that, with the exception of Steve, I'm the least well-informed person here, so I tend to think if I know about it, y'all do too :) . My unrefreshed recollection is that it was about the time PR and his mom were getting all snippy with each other and he had mom's pictures replaced in the ashrams with pictures of Marolyn/Durga, and he said that she was a specific facet of the incarnation of Durga, and that's why he changed her name. I'm not trying to put that into the article, so I don't really feel like I need to source that, that's just the basis for my comment above, golden toilet or not. And again, I think Sylvie actually worked on the plane with that toilet, but I'll leave that to her to explain, if she feels like she wants to. -- Maelefique^(talk) 19:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be looking at the wrong version of Melton's book (Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America), the page numbers changed in the 1992 revision. Page 222 states "The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance. Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" So that footnote is correct, as well as Kent's, and I haven't checked it, but with the scrutiny that goes on here, I'd be willing to bet that it's referred to in Schnabel as well. Ironically, you've made me stumble upon where I read the whole Durga thing too, on page 219 Melton says "Then in May 1974, he married his 24-year-old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Durga, usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger", (he actually says "Dulga", but it's pretty clear from the description, that's a typo) so I hope you can stop accusing me of making this stuff up now. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, I am really sorry if you got the impression I was accusing you of making things up here. Please believe me, I never thought so, and I never intended to insinuate such a thing. I do not think that dishonesty is your problem, I feel your efforts to be sincere. It is rather something else, hard to describe. Let me say, I am sure you are fun to be with drinking some beer, but I would instinctively hesitate to share with you a meal of your hand-picked mushrooms, never doubting your good intent and the mushroom book you carried. You may not be able to tell a smear-campaign when it's in your face, and you may consort with people I would not like to touch without latex gloves (metaphorically speaking). You may side-track from any issue you don't feel comfortable with, but never have I doubted your fair-mindedness (which I can't say of all editors I have encountered here). I don't doubt the golden toilet, as far as color (not material) goes. I don't doubt that the goddess Durga is depicted with ten arms and Marolyn carried that name for a while. (Newly weds! Imagine what a loving woman can do with ten arms!). But knowing hardly any person so much down to earth as Rawat, I doubt that he ever believed or proclaimed that she really was that goddess, even if Schnabel, who can't spell the name right, says so. So I hope this helps in our communication, which I find enjoyable enough anyhow. Got to sleep now, had to get this off my heart.--Rainer P. (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, it may also just be me, we've got the trifecta of issues happening around here right now, one being typically noisy, one being unusually obtuse, and you accusing me of pulling things out of the toilet. You'd think I'd have a thicker skin by now huh? :) And for the record, I don't consort with *any* of the editors here, that I'm aware of (I assume I don't know them off-wiki), and I have never discussed this article with editors here off-wiki either, that includes email, website or any other way. I think I emailed WBB twice about admin issues a couple of years ago, but not about this article's content. Also I live in an area besieged by greedy unions who are always going on strike for some reason or another (but really it's always about "more money") and they are always blaming the government, believe me, I know a smear campaign when I see one, it's in front of me almost every day here. Also, as a historian, I've studied more than my fair share of them. If you recall, regarding the situation above, I was the one that wanted PR's quote about it being a smear campaign kept in, it was M and R that wanted it out. I know that doesn't stop me from getting lumped in with "the opposing camp" anyway, but just thought I'd let you know. Ohh, and just for the record, it was Milton (who's a just a little bit pro-cult for my tastes), not Schnabel, who said PR announced his wife to be Durga. Have a good night! -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning, Maelefique! Thank you for responding so fast, and for correcting my mistake, as well as for sharing personal information. And thank God for a good night's sleep before I read it! Otherwise I might not have been able to lay the computer to rest... I guess everybody's style of thinking is different under the glow of the midnight oil (fig.). I hope you took the time to admire the conjunction of Venus, Jupiter and Luna last night? I remember astronomers saying we may never in our lifetime see that again (depending on our age, that is. I probably won't). BTW have you ever wondered, why historians are rarely found in ruling positions? Anyway, as we seem destined to get our wires crossed now and then, it may be constructive to share some emotions. Sorry if I read the thickness of your skin wrong, and the "consort" was of course meant strictly (fig.). Like I said, I believe you are honest, and I am sure the task of being a neutral editor here is a very demanding one conciousnesswise. My part is simpler, having a known POV that grows increasingly easier to defend as the sun comes out (fig.). Being neutral does not automatically make you a part of the army of the undead (fig.) in my mind, but it is certainly always challenged, and you can always grow. Remember, people came from afar to profit from King Salomon's wisdom, even the Queen of Sheba (with her only two arms)... Oh, before I forget: You may out of playfulness pick a username that might reflect an unconcious ambivalence towards basic mental orientation (sure you know the meaning of maleficus), but, as Luke Skywalker said, there is good in you.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you catch that Maelefique? There's hope for you yet. Surprisingly it seems you too can 'grow' in wisdom if you would renounce your sinful neutrality and bask in the sunlight that is the wisdom of the Perfect Master who walketh among us today and goeth by the name of Prem Rawat. How about me? Do I get to grow too? Or is there no hope. PatW (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rawat teaches, that you get good at what you really practice. Therefore, practice neutrality, and you get really good at it. Practice cynicism, and you get really good at that. It is everybody's own choice. Being good at neutrality will certainly make you very valuable at least on Wikipedia. Being good at cynicism will probably make you lonely and depressive.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Rainer, unfortunately, I missed the conjunction, but I did get a little chuckle from your "undead" and "only two arms" comments, thanks for that (I guess I should be glad I wasn't compared to Yoda?). Ya, neutral is darned tough around here, both sides think I'm on the other :) And as for my nickname, I chose it after seeing a cool/creepy painting from a man named Luis Royo, it was called "Malefic", looking at the painting, you'll see why, and then I just "latinned" and "frenched" it up a bit cuz I like the sound of it :)And yes, I saw that Pat, my mom says there's hope for me too ;) -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gee, those paintings!!! I hope you look nothing like that, else my concept about historians is moot...--Rainer P. (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice Luis Royo carries several improvement tags and includes no refs at all. Maybe you should descend upon it and demand a higher standard? Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:) Sure, if everyone here promises not do do anything while I'm gone ;) And Rainer, nah, that's just how I feel *pre*-coffee (if you read carefully, you can tell which comments I make on this page while I'm pre-coffee!), after that I'm pretty much more normal looking...ish. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

i am getting the bad impression that there is a lot of social engineering going on now Surdas (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just a few minutes of relaxed conversation, before someone picks the next thing we're all gonna argue about. Don't worry, I'm sure things will be back to ugly and adversarial soon enough :) . -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

By the end of the Week of Peace in Mazara del Vallo in summer 2011 the mayor of the city revealed a memorial stele with a quote from Rawat ingraved in four languages. Aside from being reported in local media, can such a public (!) medium like a stone stele be counted as a source by itself? And (still) talking of the lead, I am still trying to swallow the lack of intellect, but should not then his accolades be mentioned, too? They are at least as public, and a lot more substantial.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a picture of the statue? Do we know what the quote says? Who paid for the statue? If the city paid for it, that's one thing, if the city merely allowed a PR entity to put up a statue, that's a whole other thing, I think that's why we have to stick to reliable sources, it avoids any ambiguity that just having "some" of the facts (which is what you often get with only "one side" of the story in any situation) leaves us with. In regards to the lead, it accurately reflects the content in that part of the article, which is accurately sourced, by generally respected academics. The only way to make it stick out less I think, would be to expand on it a little more, but I doubt that's a suggestion that will easily be agreed upon, and I'm not suggesting it right now either. Once accolades are added to the article, I think that would be the time to discuss adding them to the lead, assuming they have sufficient weight to deserve that. I don't think a small mention in an article in a foreign language somewhere, sponsored by one of his organisations, would rate a mention in the lead, for example. A (hypothetical example here) widely reported medal from the European Union as an Embassador of Peace however, or something like that, would seem to be a worthy addition, but I tend not to make any decisions until all the evidence is in front of me before making up my mind on specifics anyway. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Italian statue/Stele art object

I went looking for more info on this, but all I could find was the italian website (Associazione Percorsi) that seems to be just a promo material clearing house for PR and TPRF. They had this to say about the week's events, "the Mayor Hon. Nicolò Cristaldi organizes, in collaboration with TPRF and Associazione Percorsi, the 'Week of Peace and Solidarity' from May 23 to 28. The week will feature exhibitions, projections and many other initiatives to promote the theme of the event, which will be especially focused on TPRF activities and the message of Prem Rawat in favour of peace, dignity and prosperity." That seems to indicate that it is not just the city that is in charge of the events of the week, but I still didn't find any reference to an art piece yet. Unless you meant this...

11:30 – Piazza Plebiscito

Inauguration of a marble engraving with a quote from Prem Rawat, to commemorate his visit to the city.

? -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I also found "http:// bitly.com/bundles/tprf/1" (you have to create your own link to it, as WP considers the link as spam and won't let me post it, so I added a space), but it's a primary source, it shows you on the right side of the page, it's a video from TPRF/WOPG:

Bundle stats

tprf - Owner

Sources

www.facebook.com (1)

www.youtube.com (1)

www.wopg.org (1)

I cannot find any other reference to it, outside of TPRF/WOPG websites, that doesn't seem very notable. There's a video at http://theypi.net/video.php?title=Mazara-del-Vallo-May-2011&id=387, but I see that all that website's content is also labelled on their main page as "© The Prem Rawat Foundation", so I have to treat that website is a primary source too. As an aside, for someone who doesn't want any attention, he definitely doesn't seem to mind having lots of different websites about his stuff. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that describes how he feels about that? Rumiton (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I read his strategy as getting maximum attention for his mission without unconditionally delivering himself to the media. Our mass media are not really independent. A slab of marbel can signify some sustainability. It may not reach as many people in a day as e newspaper, but it will last much longer. It was erected on a publicly accessible place, facing the Mediterranian sea in direction Africa, when the revolution began in Tunesia and Lybia, and a lot of refugees landed in Mazara, which has a proud history of peaceful neighbourhood of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim population. The quote says "Peace begins in the heart of all human beings" in four languages. There are photos in the web. You can also find an Italian television interview with Prem Rawat at the unveiling of the commemorative stele. Commentary is in Italian, but Prem Rawat speaks in English. I understand that the whole event was accompanied by some high-ranking personel from public administration. La conferenza, organizzata dal Comune di Mazara del Vallo e dall’Associazione Percorsi di Roma, ha ottenuto i patrocini della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Giustizia, Presidenza della Regione Siciliana, Ars, Fondazione Federico II. Messaggi di apprezzamento per l’iniziativa sono stati inviati dal Presidente della Repubblica e dal Presidente del Senato (from: http://www.paroledipace.it/pdf/Prem_Rawat_-_Mazara_%20conferita_la_cittadinanza_onoraria.pdf). The stele itself is certainly a primary source. The Italian TV-material is a secondary source, isn't it? Even when it's referred to on tprf, that doesn't make it primary, or does it?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think using a primary source to refer to a secondary source is a problem, as long as the 2ndary can be verified. I found 513 Google hits in Italian. Many are Youtubes, some are blogs, others I don't know what they are, but here are some that appear to be media sources or local government outlets. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (By the way, stele does not mean steel, it means a commemorative stone tablet.) Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC) And now, Lasciate che l'argomento cominciare. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In no particular order, I'm aware of what a stele is, I wasn't so sure Rainer's english didn't just skip a beat, watched the whole video yesterday. The PDF link Rainer provided comes from a site has a page that speaks for itself in terms of its value as a source here, for those who don't speak italian, here's the google translation of it:

This site was created by one of our ideas and is powered by the fun that we gain and our passion. Passion for life, for peace and for the person who follows and helps us every day: Prem Rawat. Paroledipace is managed and maintained in our spare time, without any economic benefit overcharged, just lots of fun! For us, this is more than enough. In addition to fun with this project, our desire, and great hope, is that what we are doing to help our great friend and teacher, Prem Rawat, in the noble task he has undertaken many years ago: to be happy to teach anyone they wish. We wish to thank the Prem Rawat Foundation for its support, and the many people who follow us with affection, advice and encouragement.

The pdf itself contains no attribution of source beyond "marsalaIT" as far as I can see. Yes, the mayor and a few others were there, and I know it's "Italian" to be yourself, but I think the mayor seems a little...well... original-looking lets say. :) (Do I need a secondary source for that too?) From Rumiton's sources, for brevity, I'll shorten my opinion, we can discuss at length if needed:

marsala.it - I don't think so

revestito.it - looks like an Italian wikipedia-type site, uses the term "we" describing the event, and refers to it being hosted by the two agencies I referred to in my comments yesterday, does have a picture of the stele though

mazaraonline.it - refers to the event as "launched today during a ceremony of the competition "The Prem Rawat Foundation" held", I'm not sure that's what we're looking for, assuming we're looking for this event to be noteworthy.

As an observation, this entire town that this event took place in, has a population of just over 50,000 (according to us), and in the video unveiling of the stele that I saw, there was maybe 20 people present, again, doesn't seem noteworthy, to me. The ypi video I linked above certainly shows more people there, but that video is listed as the ceremony kicking off the city's week-long event, it's not a PR talk, although he's obviously there too. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Rainer, while re-reading your comments, realized I missed a question, this one: "The Italian TV-material is a secondary source, isn't it? Even when it's referred to on tprf, that doesn't make it primary, or does it?", How do you know it's italian TV material? I think that's my first question. Also can you provide an Italian TV link (not TPRF/WOPG) to it? That would at least speak to it's authenticity as a secondary source. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I have only more or less what you have. I wish there were an Italian PR-article and we could ask those guys, but there isn't. And my Italian comes only from a few vacacions there, and what I remember from Latin at school... I am thinking about finding and contacting some Italian speaking students of Rawat possibly and ask for help.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like scraping the barrel just to get as much dubious trivia about Rawat into this article. Virtually EVERYTHING about Rawat in the media now can be sourced to some promotion thing by premies. It's getting boringly repetitive. It's kind of desperate you having to ask Rawat's students if there's anything to turn these cheesy PR dregs into something grand and newsworthy. Why don't you suggest the students get a newspaper to write a completely independent report on PR? With no premie's involved. That'd be a first. I don't buy this 'mistrust of the media' being some reasonable apprehension. It's just cowardice and lack of confidence...fear beasically. PatW (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a terrible thing to become repetitive. Re Marsal@it, it is described as Il primo quotidiano on line di Marsala e della Provincia di Trapani: cronaca, politica, antimafia, sport, cultura. The Number One online newspaper of Marsala and Trapani province: Chronicles, politics, news, sport, culture. Why does Maelefique not think so? Rumiton (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Also, why do you think that ReVestito is a Wiki? It is another popular local online newspaper. The name means "The Clothing of the King." Their motto is Non occorre che il re sia nudo, perche si sveli il contorno della core. Puo resta RE VESTITO, se il regno vuole luce di verita. It doesn't matter if the king has clothes or not, we will show you what shape he is in. The king can keep his clothing, when the light of truth can reign." Cool, no? Rumiton (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the same reasoning as PatW, but my opinion on Rawat's view of the media ends up being the same, if he's notable, they will report it, whether he wants them to or not, since they aren't, he isn't. I just don't buy the argument that he can control that. MarsalaIT looks like an aggregate source to me, and they don't list any way to contact them, they have no credentials, *they* can call themselves anything they like, but "Il primo quotidiano on line", doesn't translate to "the number one", it translates to "the first". Now show me something outside of their website that says they are relevant. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Primo can mean first, as in the first time something happened, but the sense here is premier, foremost. Another example would be Le primo famiglie del paese the country's first family. Is there a problem with the fact that these are both online news providers? If you are going to insist on the dead-trees, they are a fast diminishing resource. Rumiton (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Googling (marsal.it -marsala) gives many results. Here is one, an account of a "hospital ship exhibition" at a Genoa boat show. They appear to be serious reporters of many areas of local interest. [15] Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC) BTW, the hospital ship is apparently being set up to provide health care to remote areas of Madagascar. Humanitarian issues seem to be their focus. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure - put in the fact that he has a statue or whatever - that is if the resources can be found. Personally I have always felt Rawat's dealings with besuited Italian 'officials' to be somewhat mafia-esque. Over there in Sicily and these places where Rawat is fond of hanging out whist on his Mediterranean private yachting cruises, he was clearly hobnobbing with the rich. In fact I think all Rawat's minor appearances as a 'Peace Ambassador' are mostly a result of his social-climbing amongst wealthy (easily impressed) people. The whole charade is ethically shoddy imho. If he adopted a more honest, less narcissistic approach to teaching meditation I and others with intact ethics, would accord him more respect. Rawat and premies, for some reason, have no compunction about trying to buy respect and legimitacy. For those who accuse me of cynicism I would point out that Rawat and premies have a ridiculously over-cynical and demonising attitude towards 'The World" and the press etc. It's cult behaviour no more no less. PatW (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pat, you've been getting away with it for so long you may feel entitled to do it, but I feel it would help on these pages if you could stop making degrading remarks about Rawat and his students. It would also make your contributions a lot shorter.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It does seem strange that our neutral editor never seems to draw attention to this constant drizzle of vilification and personal attack. I can't help thinking if it were ever returned (perish the thought) we would see an outcry. I hope I am wrong. Rumiton (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton, I think you're mistaken about your translation. You are correct when you say that both options are possible, but you are choosing the wrong one, if you read the website further, the context becomes more clear, specifically, the page entitled "Chi Siamo" (about us), several times it refers to them being the first online newpaper, since 2007, they have had 15,000 visitors? Does not sound like the premiere Italian online newspaper to me (which I believe is La Republica anyway). It then says it's the "first independent online newspaper", lending more weight to the fact that they are referring to first, not best. And then, again "WWW.MARSALA.IT is the first online newspaper of the Province of Trapani and Marsala". Further, I don't usually think of being able to talk to the head of the premiere online *anything* directly, and yet, this company is small enough that I can, "Director: Giacomo Di Girolamo, you can chat online with the Director if you have Windows Live Messenger (MSN) and Skype using the button below". I can't say that their policy on image reproduction boosts my opinion of their article reproduction either, "The photos of on www.marsala.it are taken in large part from the internet and are therefore evaluated as public domain". Additionally, I do not see where you arrive at the conclusion that they focus on humanitarian issues, since again, the "about us" talks about being the first online newspaper for the region, and nothing at all about focusing on humanitarian issues, they also specifically mention one contributing reporter for economics, and another for border issues. I'm assuming the dead-trees comment wasn't serious, so I'll skip commenting on that. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, adressing your above question how I was sure the TV-material was not from TPRF: Rawat's speech on that square in Mazara was broadcasted live from some local or regional cable and satellite-TV-company, and that certainly was not TPRF or WOPG, otherwise the quality would have been better. Same goes for his speech in Potenza (Italy) one year before, when I saw for the first time a repeated public broadcasting of one of his speeches, in bad sound quality and even interrupted by commercial spots, which does not resemble TPRF at all. For the time being this may be OR, but it possibly could be referenced.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A fluent Italian speaker could verify the above, which seems to be true. I can't agree that the reason behind Marsal's repetition of primo is just to emphasise that they started up before anyone else; first definitely carries overtones of superiority. And regarding size, the whole province is pretty tiny, on a small island, it isn't unlikely that they have accessibility. But didn't you object above somewhere that they could not be contacted? I looked at a selection of articles they have produced to make my judgement on their focus. Did you read those? And Re VESTITO? It looks pretty authentic to me, too. It seems we have two 2ndaries and one primary source that tell us that this comparatively rather trivial event took place. It's probably worth a brief sentence in the article. Rumiton (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Rainer, I didn't pass any judgment on the television footage, I just asked "how you know where it's from?". We would need some kind of attribution for it to be useful here. Rumiton, well, I agree with at least one thing you said there, it's trivial. I don't think it's worth putting in the article. By your description, it's at best, "a small news item, on a small website, on a small island", where we have visual footage of about 20 people standing around, during an event that was supposedly co-hosted by TPRF in the first place. Oh, and yes, I missed the "about us" page because it's in an odd spot, that one was my fault. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are however, over 5 million people living on your "small island". -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Googling Marsal@.IT in Italian gives 85000 hits. Clearly they are a very active online news reporter. Searching RAWAT or RAWATI (cute, no?) from their home page gives 10 hits. These cover, not in chronological order, 1. Marsala being made the world capital of Esperanto and referring to Prem Rawat's stele quote being inscribed in that language. 2. The installation of the stele, with a list of the dignitaries present. 3. The inauguration of a peace competition by TPRF for under 27-year-old students, where they are invited to produce multi-media presentations on the theme of peace. 4. More on the above, called the Peace Prize. 5. More. 6. 28 students get certificates in Peace Competition. 7. Prem Rawat granted Honorary Citizenship of Marsala region. 8. Official notification of meeting between Prem Rawat and the "citizenship." 9. More on above. 10. Marsala to be "Peace Territory" for mediterranean region. Prem Rawat mentioned. I think there is some pretty good pickings here. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. It's, as you said, trivia. Of the 10 hits you mention (which is insignficantly small for a ":world" figure), Esperanto is the subject which only ties to PR because of the stele, which makes sense that *the city* would then want the words in Esperanto, which has nothing to do with PR, AFAIK. Two down. The hit about stele itself, did you watch the video of it's unveiling? I've had more people come out to my tennis games. Honestly, what happened to the 100,000+ crowds? Not notable. A TPRF competition, self-serving publicity, limited promotion, so no. 4 and 5, refer to the last ones. #6 on your list, 28 kids getting a piece of paper and now you want to mention that in the article? If you're not going to be serious, its difficult to have a legitimate conversation. 7-9, you already described the area as "pretty tiny, on a small island", but now it's relevant? No, you were right the first time, when you called this all "trivial". #10, The story here seems more about the region than PR and ridiculously non-notable for this article. It's possible I've misunderstood why you're presenting all this stuff here, in which case, just ignore all of what I just said, but also, please re-iterate why you're presenting this material, because I don't think I understand. Trying to prove relevance of Marsala.it? Do you think it does *that*? -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think taken as a sum, these things have a significance, and they culminate in Prem Rawat being made an honorary citizen of this region of Sicily. It does seem a part of his modern story, albeit a little one. I am still waiting for better translations of the Indian event media coverage. But also, when a TPRF article is started (personally, I don't think there is enough 2ndary mention yet, and I don't want to waste my time) we need to sort out whether online, foreign language info services like Marsal and RE VESTITO are acceptable sources for it. To me, it looks clear that they are. If you continue to object to them, I guess a noticeboard will tell us. Rumiton (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the mail sent by wopg to their subscribers. It mentions the original TV-channel (bold).

The city of Mazara del Vallo is holding a week-long festival to celebrate peace and culture. Prem Rawat has been invited to speak.

The event will take place in Mokarta Square, Mazara del Vallo, Sicily on May 27, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. CEST and will be transmitted by the TV channel TeleIBS to local networks. It will be also simulcasted online. To watch this memorable occasion live, please visit http://www.wopg.org/mazara-del-vallo-2011-broadcast ( http://e2ma.net/go/9399711930/3676601/106416596/37326/goto:https://www.wopg.org/mazara-del-vallo-2011-broadcast ) at the following time:

(Timetable)

If you miss the broadcast, a video will be permanently archived on http://www.livestream.com/teleibs ( http://e2ma.net/go/9399711930/3676601/106416597/37326/goto:http://www.livestream.com/teleibs ).

Warm regards,

WOPG--Rainer P. (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rainer, but they are all dead links. If you go to the TeleIBS site and search Rawat you get 4 hits, one of which shows a group of about 200 (my guesstimate) people attending a speech given by Prem Rawat. This appears to be Italian public television. Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, how come the sources you are suggesting I should accept, say that the event was co-sponsored by TPRF, but the WOPG mail from above says the city is holding an event and PR has been invited to speak? Those two things aren't the same to me. I fully endorse the idea of going to a noticeboard, however, I have noticed in the past, that some editors seem to lack the ability to neutrally phrase a question, which I believe is key, to getting a neutral answer, I hope we can agree on that point at least. Additionally, you didn't provide any link to your "200 ppl" video, but if it's the one I saw where PR was speaking, that was the event that kicked off the city's "Week of Peace" event, it was not a PR speech, it was an event that *included* a speech by PR, that's a distinct and important difference. One idea indicates that they were all there to see PR speak (and really, 200? so what!), and the other indicates they were all there to celebrate their city's event, and willing to listen to PR while they were there. I think that's distinctly different. And I'm not sure it's notable either way. Also, what does "appears to be Italian public television" mean? Is it, or isn't it, or is it unknown? -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I found the IBS video, where PR is standing behind giant poster that says "Week of Peace and Solidarity", so it's not a PR speech, also the video is one hour and 15 minutes long, PR's speech is about 30 minutes long, starting from the 29 minute mark, and there are performances before and after him as well. You could just as easily argue they were all there to see those opera singers, or they just came out to see their city's event. This is becoming less notable the more time I spend on it, and I didn't think it was notable in the first place. Additionally, every story on that site is either written by "administrator" or "press release" as far as I can see, and there is no indication of who runs that site, or any information about their organization at all. I did find *one* credited story, and her (Piera Pipitone) CV says the following, "Since 2010, Director in charge of issuing online TeleIBS that airs on www.teleibs.it", it would appear from that, that teleIBS only streams online, is not "Italian public television" as has been suggested. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, "public television" is not just Berlusconi and is today much less centralistic than before the internet. Anyway teleIBS is not TPRF or WOPG, but apparently independent in that respect. I don't see a contradiction between TPRF or WOPG co-sponsoring an event and the city organizing it. And I understand that PR's speech did not kick off the event but ended it as a highlight. The whole idea for this week of celebration stemmed from Rawat's visit in Mazara a year before, which seems to have resulted in a strong cooperation between Rawat and, among others, the city mayor. And I don't see why all of this should make the whole thing less notable, contrary. We witness a spiritual force manifesting in public administration. It should not be compared with one of your tennis games, and it was certainly more than a garden party with 20 participants. Perhaps the Esperanto bit can be valued as trivial, although it is significant in its own way.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely every time PR speaks in public, it will be facilitated (or co-sponsored, if you like) by WOPG or TPRF. They are the vehicles that make the physical arrangements. That in no way discounts the notability of the event. And the fact that he was invited to speak at a celebration where others also made speeches is just more interesting, not less. Also my "dead trees" remark above was not in jest. I have noticed a prejudice elsewhere on Wikipedia against on-line sources, with an assumption that if something is distributed by the Post Office it must be more respectable than something you find by Googling. One might think that more than a century of appalling tabloids and gossip magazines might leave readers more open to something new. Let us join the 21st century. It could end up being a nice place. Rumiton (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rainer, as a source, TeleIBS is a non-starter, it has no indication of its qualifications at all, 99% of its stories have bylines listed as "press release" or "administrator". There is no editorial control or accountability policy that I can find. It's not Italian public TV as suggested, for all we know, they were hired to film it, or it was given to them by WOPG or TPRF, and it's not up to me to prove that happened, if you want to put it in the article it would be up to you to prove the source, that's one of the multiple number of problems I have with this, that, according to policy, would all have to be covered. PR's speech did not kick off the event, nor was it an ending highlight, there were other performers before and after him. It's less notable because it's 200 people, Rumiton says he has articles saying PR gave speeches to 100,000+ recently, we know he had huge rallies in the 1970-80's. This doesn't fall anywhere near the level of those rallies. It is simply not notable.

Rumiton, regarding your dead trees, of course paper is still relevant, because they have accountability (and usually a verifiable history of doing things in a reliable way). Anyone can throw up a website, and say whatever they want, that doesn't give them credibility, we'd all have to be idiots to assume that it does. I know you're not suggesting that, but let's not dismiss paper yet either please, we're 20 years away from that being even a topic for realistic discussion. The large newpaper publishers have been screaming the internet is killing them since the 90's (that's for over 20 years already!), and look, they're still here. I agree that WOPG and/or TPRF will probably arrange PR's travel plans etc, however, it's ridiculous to say that when they co-host an event, that is the same as being invited to speak. Also, it might be more interesting if the other entertainers were also giving talks on peace, they weren't, they were opera singers. Clearly, he was just one piece of their week-long celebration puzzle. -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's find something we can agree on!--Rainer P. (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am far from dismissing paper sources, just saying there is a whole new generation of competing news providers whose fact checking ability is difficult to measure, mainly because they have not had time to establish a reputation. But it sounds like you are talking about blogs rather than online news services like Marsal.it and Re Vestito. If I look at these two sources they leave me in no doubt that the things they described actually happened, though how important the events are is up for discussion. I will approach the RS noticeboard to see if sources like these are acceptable for a non-BLP page. Rumiton (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Just spent some time looking over [TeleIBS]. Calling it a "non-starter" seems presumptuous, to say the least. They have been delivering local news in that region since 2004, and have many hundreds of serious articles to their credit. The byline "administrator" (which BTW, is not an Italian word) just means the article was written by one of their own staff. I will add them to the list. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then, we are at least agreed on paper sources, and I agree, online sources shouldn't be written off en masse either, however, the facts that they are difficult to rank and haven't established a reputation do not exclude them from scrutiny here, when online sources do have a proven track record, that seems to be the correct time we should be using them here. We shouldn't include them just because it's hard to prove they're wrong, we should only include them when we can prove they are probably right, the same standard for valuation we use on paper sources. I have a couple of questions regarding your RS noticeboard statement too. Are you going to ask about these sites specifically? If not, I don't see any point to asking. And since when is this a non-BLP page? There's no point in asking the question like that at all. I didn't call it a non-starter because of it's content, I call it a non-starter because it has no verifiability, and no editorial process of responsibility, the "administrator" bylines and "press release" bylines do not lend any credibility at all, in fact, they take away from it. I'm curious if the local paper from your town has such little amount of credibility on their website. Purely as a reference point, I've just looked up my local small-town newspaper (my city has 25,000 ppl in it, half of what the city we're talking about has), I have an entire page of staff listed, with phone numbers and extensions, and a job history/bio for each editor on staff, as well as a couple of paragraphs about the mission of the paper (all online), and every story is credited to an editor. That seems like an obvious difference to me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, these online-only sources have a track record going back to 2004, with hundreds of articles. Is that not an "established" record? I don't know if supplying bios and phone numbers of active editors is necessary for reliability. That is one question I will ask, about these 3 sites specifically, but also about online news providers in general. This issue will surely not go away. And of course this is not a non-BLP page; please pay attention, I was talking about gathering sources for a future TPRF article. :-) I agree that press releases are unusable, but "administrator", as I said above, means it was produced by their editorial department, not an outside agency. Which I think should be fine, as it means they are putting their reputation behind their reporting. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am paying attention, which is why I notice when you say things like you're going to ask about non-BLP pages, and then, almost guaranteed, you're going to turn around and attempt to use that result here. If we're discussing this article (and we are, and if you aren't, you should be), you need to ask about using it for BLP articles, which have, as you well know, a higher standard than other articles, otherwise, your question to the noticeboard is not useful. They do not have an online track record since 2004, you know that's wrong. They have existed since then. Are you claiming that's the same thing? Have you examined their articles going back to 2004 and verified *any* of them? (I'm not suggesting any of them are wrong, I am however suggesting you are drawing conclusions well ahead of the facts here). The National Enquirer gets some things right, are we going to use them now? How about "The Register", they certainly do have a proven track record, but somehow I suspect that you don't want me bringing in material from that source do you? So let's keep that "proven track record" playing field even, shall we? And yes, you said before that "administrator" doesn't mean "administrator", I accept that's your opinion, but I dispute your claim that it means "editorial department". Show me where on their site they say "oh, by the way when we say "administrator, we actually mean "editorial department", (Dipartimento editoriale). The fact that they are ending up with "administrator" at all, (and this is purely speculative on my part, I'm not saying this observation is correct!), suggests to me that they are using something like a wordpress piece of software, written in english, and that's the default value when you don't supply an author. The fact that they don't know how to use their own software, well, that concerns me too. You certainly wouldn't find anything sloppy like that on The Register. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several other requirements for sources to be accepted. RS counts out opinion pieces, (apart from their telling us what the author thinks) and tells us that "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view." The Register is an opinion piece, self-published by its author, whose consistent anti-Wikipedia stance among others effectively disqualifies him from being considered as a source. This cannot be compared with using a source just to tell us that a certain event occurred at X place, attended by n people. That is why we need to propose a specific edit we would like to make. Rumiton (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You lost me there I think, are you saying that Cade Metz (I think that was the author's name of The Register article), has been discussed outside of this article's talk page and is considered to have provided "an opinion piece, self-published by its author, whose consistent anti-Wikipedia stance among others effectively disqualifies him from being considered as a source", or is that just your opinion?

You made it sound like it's been decided somewhere, so I'm just wondering if I missed a conversation somewhere on WP. If so, can you give me a link or point me to the appropriate noticeboard at least? -- Maelefique^(talk) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just my opinion, but it's an informed opinion, easily supported and only refuted with great difficulty. Metz's stream of...whatever you call it...would be unlikely to be found acceptable in any contested Wikipedia article, let alone a BLP. It is entertainment, in the "Gosh, whatever will he say next?" category. It would be like using Stephen Colbert (one of my cultural heroes, BTW) as a source for political comment. Rumiton (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it didn't sound like just an opinion, thanks for clarifying. Although you make such a strenuous argument against it, it's like you're almost daring me to take the article to RSN, not sure why you're doing that but whatever. While I think Colbert is excellent, I would not use him as a source for a BLP as his entire show is intended as a parody, I think that's a bad comparison to The Register that, while it does have some more light-hearted articles, does an excellent job reporting on a variety of tech topics with quality journalism. They also have a code of ethics and responsibilities listed on their site. A quick skim through the RSN archives doesn't show anything like what you are suggesting, in fact, the opposite, it seems other Register articles on technology generally are accepted reasonably well. Others are not. So I wouldn't malign The Register quite so broadly, although it's possible your "opinion" on the usability of that article would end up being the correct one on this particular topic from them. There's probably a tool on WP that can tell us how many times The Register is used as a reference in articles, I'd bet it's 1000's of times, and I bet twice as much that Colbert doesn't have 100, so that isn't a good comparison. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RS question for TeleIBS.it

Here is how I would suggest phrasing the RSN subject, to avoid all the bias everyone wants to put in (and by doing so, invalidate the whole process, GIGO):

Is the site www.teleIBS.it a reliable source on a BLP article? Is article attribution to specific editors a necessary component when judging online news sources?

That's all I would say, does anyone have an objection to that exact question being entered at RSN? -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. You would probably not get a reply to the first part of that question, or to be safe they would just say No. You have to ask, Is this source reliable for this statement? then give the statement you want to put in. I am still thinking about how it should be phrased. I am gathering sources for a TPRF article, and most of them are online, and small, local and foreign, as that is where TPRF does their work. I would like to use these three online sources as examples to see if some broader guidelines emerge, including the editor personal identification. These seem to be totally lacking at WP:RS at present. Rumiton (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We were discussing the PR talk in Sicily, not TPRF, Rainer, and it seemed, you, seem to be of the opinion that teleIBS.it is a good source for this article. Are you saying you don't think it is? I don't mind discussing TPRF stuff, but could you start a separate section? these sections are getting endlessly long and off topic in each thread lately. (I'm not even sure on this talk page is the right page for TPRF talk, but whatever). I think I've phrased that question as non-biasedly as possible, however, if you think flipping the phrases is better, I don't have a problem with this either:

Is article attribution to specific editors a necessary component when judging online news sources in a BLP article? Is the site www.teleIBS.it a reliable source for ANY BLP material?

-- Maelefique^(talk) 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my objection above? Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but since you haven't proposed anything specific, it's a little hard to discuss. So I thought we could skip right to the point (again) and ask if *anything* from there is likely to be usable, since if *nothing* is, then we don't have to look any further. If you'd like to help by proposing whatever it is you think this source is good for, I'm all for that too. As you know, I think not only this source, but the relevance of this entire event is in serious question, so I won't presume to write that proposed text for you. -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not presuming to write the proposed text for me. After some more deliberation I will make the proposal myself. Rumiton (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to that less-hypothetical discussion! -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While we're still at it, this was the mail-information concerning the media coverage of the Potenza event July 2009:

Dear friends some input from the next event in Potenza -Italy- From 4 july - Saturday - you can see on television

Thank you and best wishes Massimo

anche sul sito internet

www.lanuovatv.com - alla voce “diretta tv”

Sabato 4 luglio alle ore 20,30

Domenica 5 luglio alle ore 15,30

Lunedì 6 luglio alle ore 23,30

Martedì 7 luglio alle ore 09,30

Mercoledì 8 luglio alle ore 20,30

comPer vedere La Nuova Tv senza abbonamento Sky:

SATELLITE: HOT BIRD 13 est | FREQUENZA: 11.541

SIMBOL/RATE: 22.000 | VERTICALE: V | FEC: 5/6In diretta sul sito

Again, it may not be the BBC and it seems to depend to a degree on commercials (OR), but so do newspapers, and it seems to be unsuspicious POVwise.--Rainer P. (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Googling that link led me here. So is La Nuova an acceptable source? Rumiton (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From common sense, I think it should be. Other opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton just finished telling me we can't ask if TeleIBS.IT is a good source, since it needs an edit to reference it with, so, is La Nuova an acceptable source for what?? And, since we don't have an edit to attach it to, common sense immediately rules it out (not in!), both on the grounds that Rumiton is suggesting, as well as the conclusion from RS/N that there's no such thing as a source that's *always* reliable, it needs to have specific context (which is not the same as being *never* reliable, which is possible without context). -- Maelefique^(talk) 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be used as a footnote after In 2009, Rawat was made "Ambassador of Peace" for the Basilicata region of Italy.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what Rumiton posted, how would that source support that statement specifically? -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton, you damage your credibility with me when you point me to a youtube video and ask if it's a valid source. If I were to point you to a Youtube video, what is the first thing you would say? "Youtube is never ever a reliable source." You know that, I know that. Come on. And even if we get past that, and click on the link of who uploaded the video we get:

About innernomads

traveling the world fulfilled inspired by the message of Maharaji http://www.tprf.org

Oh ya, that seems like a source that couldn't possibly be questioned. Please don't tell me you would accept youtube as a source.

"Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source..." Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And just for kicks, have a policy/Guideline too! -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right that we need a proposed edit for the question to be meaningful, but the rest of your statement is smoke and mirrors. YouTube is not itself a reliable source, but neither is Rumiton. But if Rumiton were to hold up a copy of Reinhart Hummel's "Indian Missions and the New Piety in the West" and point to page 49 where there is an interesting and important statement about this subject, then Rumiton becomes unimportant. The source is Hummel. Same thing here. YouTube is just pointing to a source that may be reputable for a particular statement. BTW, please stop threatening to take me off your Christmas card list. You know you're not going to do that. Rumiton (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're still on the christmas card list, just not the good one right now :) The youtube video was not uploaded by the source, so it's not holding a book, had La Nuova uploaded the video, *maybe*, but they didn't. It's definitely not RS, no smoke, no mirrors, no question.-- Maelefique^(talk) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A footnote would do what footnotes are supposed to do: supply additional information for more than average interested readers.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What additional information does it supply? Is there more info than what was posted above? -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have photos? What additional information does a photo carry? Even less than a video. Information is not just printed words. By placing the link in a footnote we avoid giving it undue weight in the article and still provide a historic document for interested readers.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Youtube is not a source, there is no video to link, unless you can find it on La Nuova's site, or uploaded to Youtube *by* La Nuova. Also, I do not believe your idea that placing a footnote in an article avoids a problem of undue weight, the footnote is still part of the article. If you'd read the guideline I linked above, you'd see that a video like this is specifically mentioned as the type to be avoided. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you, that's a little refreshing around here, I was starting to think it was just me! :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Criminal justice

Just noticed that Dr Gilbert's field is actually Restorative justice, which we now have an article on. If there's no objection, I will make the change. Rumiton (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is he still "associate professor of criminal justice"? or are you saying he's " associate professor of restorative justice", or do you mean he's " associate professor of criminal justice, specializing in restorative justice"? and what exactly would you change to what? -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Had time to kill, went and looked for myself. Gilbert is listed on the UTSA website under Criminal Justice, not restorative (for which there is no heading), and if you read his PDF CV that you can download, you'll see that nothing to do with UTSA refers to restorative justice, the final paragraph of his CV talks about him setting up an "Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy" (Mouthful! That's all one title, not three!), it refers to only 1 project that they are involved in. It doesn't seem from that, that we should be changing his designation. Is there more info elsewhere? Also, our article is consistent with the source, UTSA says he's an assoc. prof. of Crim. J., just like our article. Besides that, we just need to give him *some* credentials, so his best one should suffice, this article isn't about him. Crim justice includes the subset of restorative, so his umbrella designation would seem better to me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, what is the connection between this thread and the article?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In the 2000's section, he's the professor we quote regarding the San Dominguez Jail program. -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Rainer P. (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

When TPRF quotes Dr Gilbert, they describe him as "an expert in the new field of restorative justice." Reading up on the subject, it seems to me that RJ is not so much a "subset" of criminal justice, but rather an entirely new approach, where offences are considered to be between people rather than against the state. I think this aspect of Dr Gilbert's work is worth mentioning. If you read his CV carefully, he does three different but related jobs at UTSA. He is:

1) Director, Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy. (I take this to mean that the UTSA College of Public Policy contains a Center for Policy Studies, which in turn has an Office of Community and Restorative Justice, of which Dr Gilbert is the Director.)

2) Assistant Chair, Department of Criminal Justice.

3) Undergraduate Advisor of Record (Advising students on their courses etc.)

4) Associate Professor of Criminal Justice. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We're mostly in agreement here, except for your conclusion. As you know, what TPRF calls him doesn't matter all that much (in terms of 'useful for this article'), so we'll skip that. Then you have a strange idea that RJ isn't a subset of CJ, of course it is...*all* approaches to criminal justice, including new approaches, are by definition, still a subset of Criminal Justice overall. I read the article already btw, I know what it is. And since I'm sure you won't take my word for it, here is a quote from our own article on Restorative Justice, "Restorative justice is defined as:...innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems...", here's a couple more from the article too, "In criminal justice, RP circles and conferences allow involved parties to resolve offenses collaboratively", "The criminal justice field uses the phrase "restorative justice";... and finally, the entire article is contained within our own Criminal Justice Portal.

Referring to your points:

1) yes, I said that in my previous reply already, they have *1* project underway

2) Goes to my point, and is a point against yours

3) Many professors at all universities have that designation, it's irrelevant to our topic, and has nothing to do with CJ or RJ

4) Exactly as point 2, yes, he should be cited as "Assoc. Prof. of C.J."

I don't see where you think we need more about this guy. Don't forget that our source quote doesn't mention it to begin with either. Keep in mind also, this is an article about Prem Rawat, the quote was about something he was doing, and we cited a Criminal Justice "Expert", that seems like we have that topic well covered, adding more, less impressive, details about a supporting cite, seems completely unnecessary, and definitely undue weight, especially since this minor field is far less notable itself (possibly because its new, but the "why" here isn't important either, it's less notable). -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely object. You're using original research to justify this. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

blink*blink*blink*... uhm... me? or him? I'm assuming you mean him, I'm not sure it's original research, but if his source for the guy as an expert in RJ is TPRF then it certainly isn't a RS, and I can't find anywhere that he (or anyone other than TPRF) calls himself an expert on RJ. In fact, now that you point it out, "Director" doesn't mean much either, it's an assumption that he would do more than "direct" people, but his stated expertise is in Criminal Justice, and I don't see why we would add more. -- Maelefique^(talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sakes, who did you think she meant? :) Anyway, as you said, quoting sources is not original research, and nor is attempting to properly portray a living person, such as Dr Gilbert. It does appear that TPRF is the only source that describes him as an "expert" in RJ, but looking at his CV they were entirely justified.

From his LinkedIn account, he is a member of "Restorative Justice - volunteers & practitioners" and "Restorative Justice International." From their site: "Restorative Justice International (RJI) is interested in the following: 1)reform of the criminal justice system worldwide, 2) efforts to reform system based on restorative justice, 3)creating and implementing efforts to heal and restore victims and communities as much as possible while holding offenders accountable, 4) changing laws to allow the expansion of restorative justice around the globe."

So RJ is a reform movement within the criminal justice system. You were right in saying it is part of it, but its reformist role should not be played down.

He is also the Immediate Past Chairperson of the ACJS Section on Restorative and Community Justice. [16]. He has coauthored a book on RJ [17]. In the Section on Restorative and Community Justice Newsletter of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, [18] Dr Gilbert writes: “At least for me, and perhaps many of those involved, each step in establishing and building the Section on Restorative and Community Justice has been a labor of love, because something is wrong with the traditional justice system that cannot be fixed with 'more of the same.' When as much injustice as justice is produced by the systems we use, something is wrong...”

It seems to me we are doing this guy a systemic injustice of our own if we only refer to his previous position in the dispensation he is trying to change. How about we make it "UTSA associate professor of criminal justice with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice." Rumiton (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No. His previous position? Is he no longer the Assoc. Prof. of C.J.? Clearly, his credentials, from the source we are using, describe him as an expert in criminal justice. The quote is about criminal justice, again, this article is not about this professor. He is credited with the quote, it's relevant, it's minor, and I see no need to add further word-fluff to it. (FYI, that's not a book he wrote, it's an article, in a monthly journal) -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, by your own words "It does appear that TPRF is the only source that describes him as an "expert" in RJ". Period. Full stop. End of story. Not RS for his credentials. Is he an expert in criminal justice, yes, he's an assoc. Chair at an accredited University in the US. Again, period full stop, RS for his credentials. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that minor to me. If Dr Gilbert was a conventional criminologist his observations would carry a different weight. He is a forerunner in a new, and most would say, much improved and more human way of doing things. Regarding his "expert" status there, please don't forget, TPRF is an active, registered and respected charity, working in the field of offender rehabilitation, among others. They are not a primary source for this subject, so their opinion of this professional is arguably usable, especially strongly supported by the refs in his CV. By "previous" I meant that he apparently held positions in the conventional field of criminal justice before becoming involved in the new, restorative side of things. "Prior" might have been a better choice. Rumiton (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the opinions already, cite me facts. where does it say he's a forerunner? where does it say there would be a different weight because of this field? where does it say "most would say" anything about this field? where are TPRF's credentials for claiming someone in RJ is an "expert" in that field? they are NOT arguably usable, go find me someone that says they are. It is not strongly supported, it is mentioned, that he has *1* project on the go. It's not prior either, it still IS. Unless you have something other than more of your opinion to add, I don't see why we would need to continue this topic. And *then* we can talk about why it's all undue weight to begin with. Shall we ask RS/N if TPRF is qualified to give an opinion on whether someone is an expert in RJ? -- Maelefique^(talk) 00:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent editing says he is a forerunner, it's not anyone's "opinion." It's a very new field and he is obviously prominent in it; that's what a forerunner is. But, yes, that's a good idea. We can provide RS/N with evidence of Dr Gilbert's work and ask them if TPRF's description is justified. Rumiton (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a very new field? Did you read our article? You may want to look at this section specifically. It's thousands of years old. I have posed the question at RS/N here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That was absolutely unacceptable. I never thought you would do that, and I would never have agreed to that wording. You posed your "question" with as much bias as you could possibly get into it and left out the most telling (against you) points. Most, most disappointing, not to mention extremely stupid. This is the sort of behavior that leads to escalation, and I think it is going to. And by the way, Restorative justice is a reversion to ancient dispute resolution. In modern societies it is brand new. Rumiton (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Flat out wrong. If I had posed the question with bias, I would have said "Prem Rawat's charity, that is responsible for his travel plans, says this guy is an expert, is that a reliable source?" But I didn't. I explained the context, I mentioned the university, and I even provided a link to his CV, that covered all the points you covered. How is that biased? I skipped the part about him being a forerunner, because honestly, I think that comment weakens your case. Frankly, I think I was quite even-handed about it, but if you feel you need to add more, unlike you, I have no objection. Comment on the page at RSN. Please. I find it equally unacceptable that we have to spend over 2000 words discussing it, regardless of its outcome, let the facts speak for themselves, we'll either get through all the necessary objections, and we'll add it, or we won't. When I present you with problems here, you seem to think that adding new things to the argument, instead of discussing my objections, is the same thing, it's not. I we obviously are not going to convince each other with "opinions" either, but you keep using them anyway...what was your "most telling point" that I left out?? Would you like a moment to remove that "extremely stupid" comment before I have to deal with that separately? -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm also mildly curious if all the editors here think I phrased that question with "as much bias as [I] could possibly get into it and left out the most telling (against [me]) points"? (Which btw, I still am not sure what those are...) -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If Rumiton didn't propose to call Gilbert an "expert" your RS/N is more than biased, it's a deliberate lie.Momento (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, right on cue! Fortunately, you can read it for yourself on this page, so call it what you like. After I pointed out that only TPRF calls him an expert, even Rumiton agreed that they were the only ones that said so, but still felt they were correct, "It does appear that TPRF is the only source that describes him as an "expert" in RJ, but looking at his CV they were entirely justified.". Sounds like he was advocating that position to me. But if that's not convincing, and since you obviously didn't take the time to read this section before jumping on the bandwagon, maybe you missed the part where I said "Shall we ask RS/N if TPRF is qualified to give an opinion on whether someone is an expert in RJ?", and Rumiton responded with "But, yes, that's a good idea. We can provide RS/N with evidence of Dr Gilbert's work and ask them if TPRF's description is justified." Seems pretty clear to me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice the operative word "we"? That was the collegial approach I was taking. You wrote your own effort to lead the RS editors in your direction and it has resulted in an exporting of this argument to the RS/N. Bad. And the bias in your question? In the Prem Rawat article, an editor wants to insert additional material about a supporting quote, specifically mentioning that an Associate Chair of Criminal Justice of the University of Texas, San Antonio (Dr. Gilbert), is also an "expert" in the field of Restorative Justice. Wrong, and deliberately misleading. The record shows I wanted to add with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice. The remainder of your argument continues to support this false premise, that I wanted to call him an expert in the article. Your statement The editor also managed to find one article, co-written, "Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths". This patronising and uncollegial phrasing is also entirely misleading. I "managed" to Google the subject and it came up on the first page. I also wrote "human" and that was what I intended. If I wanted to write "humane" as your condescending [sic] seems to suggest, I would have done so. The tone of your post was jeering, insulting and deliberately downputting, the opposite of civil, the apotheosis of NOT assuming good faith. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted what I said I was going to post, and what you said was a good idea. you presented your evidence above, and I quoted it all on the RS/N board, if you had more, why did you not post it here in the first place? If he's not an expert in the field, your additional phrase is completely pointless, I don't want to add "with a focus on peanut butter sandwiches" either, unless he's an expert, and it's relevant to the article, and it's not undue weight. Like your suggestion, mine fails all 3 tests. As for your sic problem, Shirley, you jest. Your statement was completely ambiguous, either way would have worked, but they are different in meaning, I didn't want anyone to assume I had typo-ed you, which was my first thought when I read your statement originally. You have crossed a line. Please see your talk page. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube, again, since opinions aren't useful

Hopefully my question is less "exciting" this time... I've posted it here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's sufficiently neutral, and I am also interested in other editors' opinions.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And the score so far...

Youtube not a source: 3 (but only if you count me, 2 uninvolved)

Youtube is a source: 0

I hope this will spare us some time with source discussions in the future (although I'm also hopeful we can get more than 2 uninvolved opinions before calling this fait accompli) -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In the current Nelly Furtado section, we also have this comment:

YouTube is not normally a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Maelefique^(talk) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin note

Since a lot is covered in the headers on this page, I'll keep it brief. NPOV and civility are not optional here; if people are having problems with either of them, they will very quickly face sanctions. The bickering has gone on for far too long here and needs to stop now. I have no problem handing out blocks and bans as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejecting Divinity

Our little drive-by earlier today drew my attention to this part of the article (and as an aside, I can't believe we, as a group, have been so meticulous with this article, and yet we still manage to miss some things that don't seem right when it's suddenly drawn to your attention):

A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers.^[46]

Has anyone read this article? that's not really what it says, and I'm more surprised because it seems to totally mis-characterize what the reporter said. Here is the actual quote from the article:

Maharaj Ji came across as a real human being. He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor.

When I read that, I think first of all, that he's saying that PR was trying to play down the notion presented by his "staff" (and yes, I realize that "staff" isn't exactly the right word here, so please, use that word to mean only the difference between those charged with organizing the event, and those attending it), not downplaying any ideas held by his audience/followers, but then the article goes on to say things that change the meaning of what the reporter is talking about, and takes this quote into an "out of context state" I think. Within a few sentences, the article goes on to say:

Many people left with the feeling that it had been a "cosmic rip-off" or the embryonic stage of "spiritual fascism." As you've probably heard, Maharaj Ji went to Detroit the next day and got hit in the face with a shaving cream pie by a fellow who felt the whole thing was a fraud. The only fault I can find with this protest, regardless of whether that feeling was substantiated, is that the pie was not edible.

This is not a reporter that's claiming PR eschewed claims of his Divinity, this is an author who is calling the whole show a sham, and that's not the characterization our article portrays at all. I have an idea or two on how to correct this problem, but how about someone else gets the ball rolling, who knows, maybe we can accomplish something here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok... well... as I see it, there's only 2 ways to go, we either remove that quote entirely as it's out of context and distorts the author's meaning, as well as using something here that's attempting to prove something that we can see from the source isn't really accurate. Or, we flesh it out more by adding more quotes from the article, or more of a mention on the whole Divine/divine, God/god, problem, which I think is probably the right way to go (sadly, this will probably make the article longer, in spite of what I have recently said, but I don't see a way around it if we follow this route, and I think this is a large enough controversy that it deserves a little space). Which would mean we need some sources to explain more about the Indian sense of god/divinity in general (not a page of quasi-religious mysticism, just a little basic, easy to digest, stuff), I don't have any particular source for that type of general reference. I know that some ppl here have more to do with Indian religious beliefs in general here, are there some non-controversial books that help explain that aspect that we could look at? -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a starting point, the Peace Bomb seems like a good place, I asked this previously, but was ignored, the quote below is hard to hard to claim he isn't saying he's God, he specifically refers to manifesting in a human body, and incarnating as GMJ, that's pretty specific isn't it?

"But when the Lord saw that the troubles... had reached the final point...[he] manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world"

From there it seems he wasn't in any big hurry to discourage that idea for a few years, but gradually felt it was better if he at least quit saying it out loud, even if he didn't correct people necessarily, who had that opinion. Then he moved towards playing it down, and at some point, do we have a nice simple source of him saying "I'm not god?" or something very similar and straightforward? I'm reasonably certain he's not suggesting anything like that now, so I'm trying to make a sort of timeline to work from, collect the pieces, and then shrink the heck out of it to squish it into the article somewhere, if we can come up with something coherent. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think the East West Journel quote is out of context you can always select something from the rest of his description about Rawat - "Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims, not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is. He spoke in allegories, referring to himself in one of them as a "cute kid" who helped someone find the superman comic that he was looking for. He has a good command of the language and a practiced sense of comic timing. At one point he said that people could search for inner peace other places, but if they didn't find it, "Come back because I've got it." No magic tricks. Simply, if you want peace. I got it." But I think one sentence is enough. Momento (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too long of a quote, but I don't have a problem keeping part of it in, I like the "out-christ"ing part, but that's only half of what the article has to say, and that skews his article's conclusion even further, then we'd have to add all, or at least an equal part, of that stuff at the end too, otherwise, that's just cherry-picking, which is kind of what we have now, only not quite as blatant as what you're suggesting we add, if you're suggesting we *only* add those bits. -- Maelefique^(talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the topic is big enough for a small section on its own possibly, something like:

--Divinity/divinity--

There has been some controversy about whether or not Prem Rawat claimed he was God. Initially, his comments, taken from early speeches as a child in India, such as the Peace Bomb, led to this idea. In the Peace Bomb, he stated that "The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world". The differences in context between the Indian view of "Lord" and the more Western/Christian view of "Lord" is often cited as the reason for confusion over the matter ^{(cites needed here, but I've heard this here a lot on this talk page, so I assume these will be easy to find)}. After arriving in the West, Rawat's answers when asked about this seemed only to further encourage his followers that he was, in fact, God, despite the fact that there is no recorded evidence that he clearly said "Yes." to this question. ^(true?) In fact, at a 9000 strong Boston rally in 1973, a reporter stated in reference to Prem Rawat that "He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor", although he also went on to say that "Many people left with the feeling that it had been a "cosmic rip-off" or the embryonic stage of "spiritual fascism."". When asked about it directly, Prem Rawat claimed he was not Divine, but the knowledge he contained was. ^{[citation needed]} From the mid-1980s onward, Prem Rawat has dropped his connections with Indian style teachings, and has concentrated on a style of public speaking which is now similar to those of motivational speakers, travelling around the world to spread his message that peace resides within, without reference to the idea that he or his knowledge is Divine.

There is another example from the video, (LOTU), where is is asked the question directly, and he deflects the answer, I didn't include it here because I can't remember the exchange off the top of my head (haven't watched it in years), and it's on videotape, so I would have to hook up my VCR to watch it again, I may do that later if I have time, my recollection of it is that he was asked the question, but answered it only in a way that didn't say yes, and didn't say no either.

This isn't a suggested edit into the article, it's a starting point for discussion, hopefully (probably unrealistically) we can discuss this calmly and maybe come up with a useful edit when we're done. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, it is not a knowledge he "contains", but he has the gift of revealing it in the heart of his students, where it has been present all along. It is something, he says, every human being has. This is an essential point. And that is "divine" Knowledge, if you have to use a term for it.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean this sentence, "When asked about it directly, Prem Rawat claimed he was not Divine, but the knowledge he contained was", how would you change it to reflect what you're saying? ( Assuming that my sentence isn't a quote, I thought I had read that exact quote somewhere, but I don't recall what the source was at this moment, just fyi) -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder it was so fresh in my mind, it's from that East West journal again, the article says "Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims, not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is" -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of basic understanding. If that knowledge is said to be "contained" anywhere, it would be the hearts of human beings. The Master has the gift to "reveal" this knowledge. This is also the way Rawat himself has worded the case innumerably often. Reveal means it's been there all the time, like, say, a forgotten well in your garden. The one who comes and shows you where it is, does not "contain" it. Do you really not see the difference?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand the difference, but that doesn't get us very far unfortunately. I would prefer to use the "reveal" connotation that you would prefer too, however, I don't have a source for that assertion, do you have a source for it? I would think that even a TPRF source for this would be ok, since that would not be unduly self-serving, if it only describes what he says about his role in releasing the Knowledge. Also, if I fall down a forgotten well in my garden, I shall be very unhappy with you... :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)-- Maelefique^(talk) 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why it has to be revealed ;-) I will look for sources. Help appreciated.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue belongs in the Media section. Juxtaposing what Rawat said at his first events in the west with what the press said. In Ontario 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". In London 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". In Johannesburg - "People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose". In fact, I propose the following as the second sentence of the Media section - "Despite making it absolutely clear when he first came to the West that he wasn't God, that no human being could be God and that God, as far as he was concerned, was pure and perfect energy that could be personally experienced be anyone, the media falsely claimed that Rawat said he was God". It's long overdue.Momento (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to propose a completely separate edit, please create a separate section for that, otherwise, we end up with one section that just gets waay too long, (as seems to be the case a lot lately). Do you have sources for those quotes? Otherwise they aren't usable, as you know. Thanks. Also, you never responded to my questions above, in case you missed them. But if you're thinking about moving this to the Media section, I wouldn't think that was best, it does seem that not just the media was confused over whether he was or was not claiming to be God, so moving it to the Media section would imply that it was just a case of Media POV only. I think this could be it's only small section due to its relevance across the time period. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources for those quotes are DLM publications, so the idea that Rawat claimed to be God is absurd. It's not a matter of some interpretation of theology or philosophy or what others said Rawat said. He was absolutely clear to his followers, God is energy that can be experienced within. Regrettably the media had a different agenda which is why this info belongs in the Media section.Momento (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, please provide the sources for your quotes so we can incorporate those ideas into the edit as well. I'm not sure how you can call the claim "absurd" when I've pasted Rawat's own words here recently stating that:

But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and then manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world.

That sounds an awful lot like "I'm God" to me, I'm not the media, and based on some of the opinions of the ex-premies that edit here, they don't seem so sure either, I don't think they all qualify as "the media" either. How do you explain the quote above? -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Explain what? It may "sound like God to you" but all I see is Lord, True Saint and True Guru Maharaj Ji.Momento (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess you misunderstood. I see that, and it says "God gave himself a body. God, GMJ, has incarnated", you would have to not understand english to see a possible, and common, understanding of that not to mean "God made himself the mortal, GMJ", but we don't need my interpretation of it, we have his own words, they can stand on their own merits, just like the rest of his words, which pose a great counter-point, as soon as you provide the sources you quoted in your text from above. How long until we can get some of those? -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The London quote is from "Reflections on an Indian Sunrise"i" published in 1973. "The world thinks, people think, God is a man. People think God has ears, nose, teeth, and he rises early in the morning, brushes his teeth, washes out his mouth and he is an old man so he brushes out his beard also. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy, and that is why scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created". The Ontario quote is from "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" published 1973 "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."Momento (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see "God" written anywhere in the quote you provided.Momento (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Great to see those sources listed, that first one, that's a book? published by? (I've heard of the second one, so I'll track that down, but we'll need page references for both too please). In reference to the quote, it capitalizes the word "Himself", in reference to God, and also says "the Lord saw" Lord is a common synonym for God, especially when giving it Anthropomorphic properties. it also says "he" manifested himself in a human body.

"Lord" may be a synonym for "God" but it actually means "noun - someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler: lord of the sea | lords of the jungle | our lord the king". Very OR to say it only means what you think.Momento (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

From our own article Lord we have:

"Lord" is used as a title of deference for various gods or deities.

Hinduism: In Hindu theology, The Svayam Bhagavan may refer to the concept of the Absolute representation of the monotheistic God. Another name used more commonly used in Hindu theology is Ishvara, meaning "The Lord", the personal god consisting of the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

You may think "Lord" and God" are synonymous but it actually means "noun - someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler: lord of the sea | lords of the jungle | our lord the king". Very OR to say it only means what you think.Momento (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this quote is really confusing, I think we're on much more solid ground showing that he started off with a possible misunderstanding, because of his words and actions, and a gradual rejection of the idea until we get to today where again, I don't think there's any confusion, that he isn't God. Your quotes also fit into that timeline. -- Maelefique^(talk) 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rawat said he wasn't God in English in 1971 and he's probably still saying it. If you look at his Indian talks you'll see he drew a very clear distinction between himself and God. Regrettably the western media couldn't help themselves.Momento (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that he said he wasn't God. I just found an example of it myself, I know there are sources for it, but that doesn't change what he said at other times. The western media had nothing to do with the Peace Bomb, it was published in the Divine times/It Is divine (Are those the same magazine that they just changed the title of at some point?). -- Maelefique^(talk) 08:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what is so special when there is a living person. No need to interpret their words. There are of course interpretations, but there are also the person's actual words. It seems important to consider this, especially when there appears to be a discrepancy. Maybe we can find a formulation for the article that takes account of this.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Rainer. Unless you accept this most basic of PR's teachings you'll always be confused by what follows.Momento (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Rainer, let PR's words speak for themselves. Also, by all the various quotes that are already provided, in what is now being split into two talk sections of similar topic, it seems pretty straightforward that there are quotations to support both positions, and that's what I thought to begin with, none of which has been media quotes yet. Which is why this should not be in the Media section, and should be on it's own, in a Divinity/divinity section, that will cover both media and PR directly, as well as scholars, and possibly anyone else we feel has something important to say, as long as we end up with an NPOV section. -- Maelefique^(talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no quote that contradicts PR saying "I am not God". And it would be OR to suggest other wise. And it is hardly surprising that an Indian Guru who teaches what he calls "Knowledge of God" would talk a great deal about God and that he considers the whole subject Holy, Divine etc. So talking about his Guru or any Guru as being Holy, Divine etc doesn't imply the Guru is God, on the contrary it is well understood that the sole purpose of a Guru is to connect people with God.Momento (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the following quotes as contradictory to PR saying "I'm not God", as well as confusing to the issue, (which is why I suggested we explain it in the first place):

"Guru Maharaj Ji.The Lord. All-powerful." from The Divine Times 1978 Volume 7, Number 4.
"The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save humankind" - And It Is Divine, July 1973
"The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world" - The Peace Bomb, via The Divine Times
"The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji, has brought the same Grace with Him that He brought for us before" - Peace Bomb (note the use of the singular "He" and "Him")
""Lord of Mercy." Some only say "Lord," some say "God," some say "Lord Christ." Same thing." - Recieve That Truth, 1971, p.27

(Keeping in mind that in Hindu theology, The Svayam Bhagavan may refer to the concept of the Absolute representation of the monotheistic God. Another name used more commonly used in Hindu theology is Ishvara, meaning "The Lord", the personal god consisting of the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva)

I'm not sure how you can keep ignoring quotes like these, as you probably know, there are quite a few more. If you don't want to take my opinion of them (and I'm reasonably sure you don't), we should ask for a neutral opinion at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases to see if we can resolve this and move forward. Please note, I have not used one quote from "The Media" you keep trying to pin this on. -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

None of them are PR saying "I am God". They are all honorifics praising Guru Maharaj JI. They are common in India, like elephant headed Gods. Even his brother was called "Bal Bhagwan JI"= "Born God". As I said in the Media section, you need a reliable source saying PR said he was God or a quote that says there was confusion. All those quotes demonstrate is the high regard PR and others hold the position of Guru Maharaj JI/Perfect Master etc. and their belief that the Guru can save them. Just like some Roman Catholic thinks praying to a saint can find their lost cat.Momento (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we seem somewhat deadlocked on this issue, I have asked for comments, here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote that isn't from Rawat, but quotes from him didn't seem to sway your opinion at all anyway, this is from Melton:

The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p. 143, "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

-- Maelefique^(talk) 06:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Melton is an excellent source but it doesn't support your claim that PR said he was God. On the contrary it simply confirms what I've been saying - a guru is a manifestation, embodiment, channel, emissary, conduit etc. You can learn more about PR's teachings where that quote is presented here[19].Momento (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, thanks for arranging a seperate space for discussion of this topic. Hopefully it can further an understanding which I think is necessary in order to avoid a senseless battle of quotations here.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Many incorrect information in the section, weekepedia has allowed incorrect information written by people that has strange interpretation , and did not allowed to insert correct information, weekepedia may like the surrealistic expression, and pictoresque description instead then simple and real analitic description of a biografy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.244.78 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your well thought out and expressed opinion of the article that all the editors here have spent years working on to make it what it is today. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who looks forward to working with you in the future to improve it even further when your hard work and research is added to our own to make an even better article. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen worse. It takes a while to understand the way WP ticks, where understanding is not necessarily the prime objective. There are those who understand well, but don't formulate well, an vice versa. Maybe understanding and linguistic skill are in a way independent variables. --Rainer P. (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they are independent too, but I'd point you to WP:COMPETENT, and let you draw your own conclusion. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, of course. Maelefique, I've lost the link to our current mediation, can you help out? Thanks.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't missed anything, they're still dealing with a procedural issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_6 -- Maelefique^(talk) 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's only the request page, and I somehow can't find the actual mediation activities.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hunga Dunga

It's gone remarkably quiet around here. Wassup? Meantime we can add to the reference books that variously describe Prem Rawat either as denying being God or strongly suggesting that he was. In the linked excerpts the author rather hilariously describes the 16 year old Rawat in an 'I am not God' mood. I agree with the person that uploaded this excerpt that the 'promises' made in the Knowledge Session are historically incorrect as I personally was 'revealed Rawat's Knowledge' in 1974 and am quite certain that the vows described did not exist until quite a bit later. I see the book is available on Amazon. PatW (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove your link to a self published site the violates BLP about a self published book that cannot be used as a source.Momento (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question Pat, I think we're all waiting for the mediation to start (was supposed to have started already).-- Maelefique^(talk) 23:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

On Amazon it says "Publisher: Dog Ear Publishing (March 16, 2009) ISBN-10: 1598587374" And it has good reviews to boot. What makes this "self-published"? Anyway isn't "Peace is Possible" self-published?PatW (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As "Dog Ear Publishing" describes itself on its home page "Self Publishing that actually makes sense". And please remove the link.00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel strongly why don't you remove it? Does it seriously bother anyone for goodness sake? And haven't you got anything better to do than constantly demand that all links to anything other than Rawat promotional stuff be removed? It seems pretty interesting and relevant to me. PatW (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it.Momento (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems sinister and Orwellian if we can't even discuss these things openly. Momento's removed the link and the name of the book. It's called 'Hunga Dunga' - Confessions of An Unapologetic Hippie by Phil Polizato if anyone's interested. And, despite the inaccuracies I noticed, it mostly rings true - also it's a bit of light relief. I fail to see why we can't discuss or examine the many books that have been written that cover people's experiences around Rawat. It's not even as if the book slanders the subject in any way. Maybe it doesn't qualify as a source but I ask again - why would "Peace is Possible" not, by the same token, be classed as self-published? It would seem that book was essentially commissioned by Prem Rawat's people. Or is that OK or something? Seems crazy to me if so. PatW (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a forum where you can discuss Rawat but as it says at the top of the talk page "This is not a forum for discussing Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely we can discuss sources about Rawat here, without question that is totally fine. However, Hunga Dunga says on the copyright page "This is a work of pure fiction...". Ergo, not a source we can use unfortunately. And that's the only reason I can see why this book is not in the same category as PIP or Soul Rush. If not for that, I didn't see any reason why we wouldn't be considering this as a source. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

D'you hear that Momento? It's OK to discuss these sources. Can you chill out a bit on this topic? Now... Maelefique, this 'pure fiction' bit is indeed rather terminal I agree. I tend to think it is not in fact pure fiction (the descriptions are too accurate on the whole) however I reckon he's said that to cover himself.PatW (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there Pat, however, I would never let any Pro-Rawat information into the article that claimed it was fiction either (insert your own joke here). -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can discuss whether a source is reliable or not but if the conclusion is that the source is unreliable then that's where the discussion ends. "Hunga Dunga" is self published and therefore is not a reliable source.Momento (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For you maybe the discussion ends...that's fine...we'll discuss as we please thank you. Don't you think you might be taking this Prem Rawat stuff a little toooo seriously? I suppose if he is God then we should be always VERY serious. Oops sorry...PatW (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If the only problem with Hunga Dunga was that it is self-published, it may be reliable to use as a source. That is not why we cannot use it here. There is no moderator here that decides when discussion is over. However, anyone here is welcome to stop talking when they feel they have nothing else to say on a topic. -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)