Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 7 February 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Prem Rawat was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 11, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007

Criticism

Since Prem Rawat is controversial a criticism section feels relevant. This criticism section has been deleted or removed several times without comments by Momento and/or others. A previous article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat " has also been deleted. It has also been noted that an external link to a site about Prem Rawat and his work has been removed by Jossi without comment. However edit warring is prohibited Misplaced Pages:Edit war.

Any disputes should be dealt with using the dispute resolution process. 76.102.196.148 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 178.26.39.46

I removed that link on the basis of Misplaced Pages:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, as well as Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources. As for the "criticism section", please read the archives were this has been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user. This article is the only one you have ever edited. You have shown a dishonest approach by describing the website you tried to link to as a “website about Prem Rawat and his work.” I suspect you know very well that site is an unmoderated attack site set up with no purpose other than denigrating the subject of this article, who is a living person and protected by the Misplaced Pages guidelines and rules for Biographies of living persons. You are doing yourself no favours and are heading for a charge of disruptive editing. Please avoid this by reading the extensive archives of this discussion page before contributing again. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user, just like me. This article is one of many that I have edited, but since my ISP changes my IP address from time to time, it just seems I am only editing articles relating to Mr Ji's operations at the moment. I am sometimes incredibly dishonest, but my contributions to wikipedia have to be assessed not on the basis of my appalling crimes, rather, whether they make sense and are informative. I know very well the ex-premie sites are antagonistic towards Mr Ji and that nothing must ever be published that calls into question his good name and the multiple money-collecting organisations run in his name. This is an important piece of international law, with which every article in wikipedia must comply with as at present, under pain of persecution from the latter-day Praetorian Guard. Your contributions will be mercilessly deleted by a handful of premies whose spiritual path has led them to be the guardians of the premie-controlled pages in wikipedia. All I can say is to repeat something once said by a little known British leader some while ago, a man called Winston Churchill. He said: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, your comment in it's current form can easily be seen as a personal attack. You should not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's the policy. The site being referred to describes itself as an information resource covering Prem Rawat and his work, and according to Jossi's comment above it's ok to refer to a biased site such as the site that contains Prem Rawat's resume.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Details of resume online

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

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

The material in question:

His résumé lists skills in computer graphics and computer-aided design. His practical experience as a pilot has enabled him to contribute to the development of software for the aviation industry. He is listed as co-inventor on a U.S. patent for a world-time aviational watch. As a successful private investor, he has contributed to start-up companies in several industries.

The source:

What is Maharaji's educational and professional background? As a young boy, Maharaji attended St. Joseph's Academy in Dehra Dun, India. He later graduated from several flight training schools where he earned a number of pilot type-ratings qualifying him to fly commercial and other jet aircraft as well as helicopters. His practical and comprehensive knowledge as a pilot has enabled him to contribute to the development and testing of software applications for the aviation industry. Additionally, Maharaji has invented and developed a number of other aviation-related products and has a patent pending on a watch he designed. As a successful private investor, he has contributed to start-up companies in several industries. Maharaji also excels in the area of computer graphics and design.

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

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

Comments by RfC respondents

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

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

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

The site, Maharaji.org, still exists, but Rawat has removed all biographical information from it. This was clearly an active decision by Rawat, and the page in question cannot be found by any casual browsing. Given this, there was no need for Rawat to ask the Wayback Machine to remove the page. If Rawat's followers who edit this article had not somehow retained the full URL, then the page and the information on it would never have been found. --John Brauns (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The wayback machine material is there, and was not removed for reasons neither you and I can speculate about as it is irrelevant. You wanted an RfC, the RfC was made, and we got responses: what else do you want? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I did not raise this RfC, and it is not the RfC I would have raised. As I've said before, there are many reasons why the material quoted from the Wayback Machine should be excluded. This RfC addresses one of them, and as I've also said before, if a page that could not be found by browsing, that requires the user to turn off Javascript to read, and that the subject removed from his website years ago, is not, by Misplaced Pages standards, considered a poor source, then common sense is clearly absent here. Anyway, so far we've had just ONE opinion. Merry Christmas! --John Brauns (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inserted in the correct place.Momento (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeating your arguments again and again, does nothing to strengthen it, on the contrary, and shows a lack of ability to listen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if I repeat myself, I am sorry, but all you seem to do is repeat that the source is fine, and make no comment on my reasons for saying the source is poor. This suggests to me that it is you who are not listening. For instance, once this discussion has disappeared into the archives, how will readers know that they have to turn Javascript off to read the source? This is a valid point that you have made no comment on. Regarding my other reasons for opposing the content, apart from saying that the content is not contentious, which I strongly dispute, you have made no atttempt to rationally argue why I am wrong. For instance, the content is clearly not related to Rawat's notability, and is not basic details about his life such as how many children he has, yet you make no attempt to argue why we should ignore WP:Selfpub on this point. So, Jossi, show me that you are listening please, by engaging in the discussion and persuading me with rational argument. --John Brauns (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I already explained this to you myself, as well as one of the editors that responded to the RfC: (a) A web page that is no longer on line is the same as a book that is out of print. If it can be verified by the wayback machine, or by visiting a library respectively, it is a verifiable source. The fact that he is a pilot, and that has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, although common sense and normal use of the English language supports my position that the Wayback machine is a poor source, if no one supports my view I will concede on use of this site as a source, but I must repeat my question as to what type of biographical information should be excluded on the grounds that it is not related to a BLP subject's notability, as sanctioned by WP:Selfpub? Your claim that he has inventions is entirely unsupported by independent sources, and your use of the term 'patents' in the plural when Rawat has half a patent on a non-commercial watch is a little careless on your behalf. According to my sources, Rawat's income is 100% donations from his followers and subsequent investment income from those donations. None is income from inventions, so this issue strikes at the heart of why this issue is contentious, and therefore requires non-self-published verifiable sources WP:V. --John Brauns (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Jossi, you just wrote "The fact that he .... has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB", and then you say you never said his income is based on patents and inventions. So what sources of income were you talking about? Look, I agree with you - we have no sources acceptable to Misplaced Pages about his current income, so we should include no content that claims or implies such sources of income (apart from the TPRF quote), but please don't pretend that Rawat's source of income is not contentious. Apart from his God claims it is the biggest contentious issue related to Rawat throughout his time in the west, and has been covered in most independent newspaper articles on him. --John Brauns (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming extremely boring ... The material you deleted needs to be restored, as it is obvious that the material is verifiable as argued by me and others that responded to the RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one person supported using the source from the RfC, so why do you use the term 'others' in the plural? As I've said before most of my arguments were not covered by the RfC. I will refer this to an RfC on all the grounds I have argued if the material is reinstated. --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow JB's argument that the material is contentious but now that he has compared it to the "God claims", I understand completely. I have restored it.Momento (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have difficulty following the argument. --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jossi, you cannot take one side in a dispute and claim there is no dispute. The fact that we are arguing about the content is proof the claims are contentious. Apart from the poor quality of the source (BTW, are you intending that the article contains instructions about the need to and how to turn off javascript when viewing the source?), the content is also not appropriate because it is self serving and not relevant to the subject's notability. I quote from WP:Selfpub:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving". This content fails on all three counts. --John Brauns (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, the material is verifiable, and that it what I am arguing. The material is not self-serving, unless you happen to be someone that do have something against the subject of the article. And the material is relevant as this is a biography, and many biographies contain personal aspects such as name of spouse, children, etc. which are not specific to their notability. In any case, as we already agreed to disagree, we better wait for other editors to comment rather than continuing disagreeing.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, could you just clarify for me please what kind of information should be excluded from a BLP according to this guideline:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to their notability"?--John Brauns (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Material from self-published and questionable sources should be excluded if:

• it is contentious;
• it is unduly self-serving;
• it does involve claims about third parties;
• it does involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is based primarily on such sources.

Momento (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Self-published content

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

Comments by involved editors

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

• (a) The material in the article does not make any claims about his source of income being based on "aviation inventions"; (b)Neither it claims that his income is based of his contributions to startups; (c) Material in a person's published resume can and is used in WP articles about that person; (d) There is nothing contentious here; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  The text below may provide a way to understand the claims made on the website in question, and resolve the apparent misunderstanding/alleged contradiction expressed by User:John Brauns above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While the organization developed resources to hold events and publish materials to present the message, Maharaji started working to create financial security for himself and his family. To him, one thing was clear: there had never been a charge for Knowledge, nor would there ever be. He had never charged for his appearances, and he never would. Furthermore, neither he nor his family had ever benefited from the sale of materials: from the very start, he had granted the organizations royalty-free copyright licenses to make materials from his addresses. His personal financial independence would allow him to provide for himself and his family with dignity, while the organizations would cover the costs of creating materials, setting up events, and conducting all activities necessary for furthering his message of peace. But how would he do this? When he first started out, hundreds of individuals, grateful for what he had shown them, helped him with his personal needs, such as buying him clothes and food, so he could dedicate his time to spreading his message. Also, since he had arrived in the U.S. at the age of thirteen, he was provided support by the organization in the U.S. in keeping with his guest status until he became an emancipated minor capable of pursuing his own interests privately. This support included housing, transportation to and from events, and other relevant expenses. In 1977, the organization was audited, and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service found these practices to be in full compliance with the regulations governing charities. At the same time, personal gifts of appreciation started coming not just from people but from businesses his students had founded that were doing well. He received stock shares in corporations as gifts, which later generated significant dividends for him. Some of these companies were sold, generating substantial windfalls, and his profits were reinvested smartly. One particular company that developed large- scale software applications for government contractors went pub- lic, generating considerable wealth for Maharaji and his family. In this way, he became financially independent and able to provide for his family while also focusing on bringing his message of peace to people around the world. Maharaji has never had any qualms about enjoying an affluent lifestyle and has made it clear that neither poverty nor wealth bring happiness. Throughout the years, his investments have allowed him and his family to enjoy a privileged lifestyle for which he never has to ask for or accept any compensation from the organizations furthering his message.
     Cagan, Andrea, Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat, pp.218-19 Mighty River Press, ISBN 978-0978869496 OCLC 123014238

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

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

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

Momento, you have attributed to me beliefs that I do not hold, and then argue against them. That is called a Straw man argument. I acknowledge that he does not charge for Knowledge. I acknowledge that he only receives travelling expenses from the organisations that organise speaking engagements for him. I acknowledge that he has invested, and continues to invest, the gifts of appreciation he receives from his followers. I am quite happy to accept that the investments he has made with the help of his advisers have been successful. What I will not accept are implications that he has a separate income stream that does not originate from the gifts he has received. --John Brauns (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what you think, or do not think, accept or not accept? We are reporting what the sources say period. Our personal opinions have no bearing on this article, as you already know. So why keep mis-using these pages again and again? Se WP:NOT#FORUM ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to the RFC

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

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

Yes, I understand that speculation of his wealth (or not) and its sources (opr not) is contentious. But that's not the same as saying that statements he was a pilot, or graphically skilled, are contentious. I asked very specific questions. Try this:

1. If the material described above were added, what would the actual problem and impact be? Not "it's a problem because it's disputed", but very specifically: what impression would it give, what impact would this addition have, and in which ways would it conflict with other statements from other sources?
2. WP:NPOV asserts that we acknowledge all significant viewpoints. Try this:
   "Prem had access to funding at an early stage via donations, which he stated he had invested and built upon to finance his life . He also stated that he had earned money from inventions and other work . These claims are disputed by various others on the ground that there is no (or "is no conclusive") independent verification ." Thoughts?

FT2  09:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no problem with including the fact that he is a pilot, or that he has skills in computer graphics, (although I think the latter is a little trivial for this article!). I believe that adding the claims to aviation inventions and 'contributing' to unnamed startup companies, gives the reader the incorrect impression that Rawat is a professional inventer and venture capitalist. The problem regarding Rawat's wealth has been the lack of sources, but I think we can resolve this by including a summary of the quote Jossi has kindly provided from Cagan's book. --John Brauns (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Please show us the source for this claim.Momento (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are, again, crossing lines that you should not, John Brauns. Everybody here has been extremely patient with you and your requests and it is about time that you stop with innuendo and speculation. You can do that in your numerous personal websites, but please do not bother us here with speculation and other such nonsense about which we do not have sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And I would appreciate if you stop from saying "as you and I know", because I do not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

We cannot highlight the dispute because there isn't one. There are sources that say of Rawat "He supports himself and his family as a private investor and has contributed to the success of startup companies in various industries, including software.". There are no sources that contradict this. This is probably the most meticulously sourced article in Wiki and there is no room for one person's biased OR.Momento (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Momento is right, we have independent sources as well as SPSs that make similar claims, so there is no need to highlight a non-existing dispute, as it would violate V, NOR and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This RfC is about whether the claims to aviation inventions and contributing to unnamed startup companies should be rejected from this BLP as provided by WP:Selfpub because they are contentious and not related to the subject's notability. Of course there are no sources that contradict the claims, because they have no foundation. This is precisely why those safeguards in WP:Selfpub were introduced - to prevent self published but false claims by notable people being included in this encyclopedia. The fact that there are no other references to these claims either in support or in contradiction is precisely why they should be excluded, on the basis they are contentious and not related to the subject's notability. Although I thank editors who seek a compromise here, I ask them to give their honest opinions about whether the claims are contentious and/or not related to Rawat's notability. If the answer is yes, then the content should be excluded. --John Brauns (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot frame a response in a particular way... that is not the way RfCs work. I think that you need to re-read the comments made by the respondents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please be patient with me and humour me just a little longer and give me an example of what kind of information should be excluded from a BLP according to this guideline:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to their notability"? Just one hypothetical example. --John Brauns (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but not interested in humoring you. We are not discussing hypotheses here, but if you want to discuss policy, you can do that at WT:V. 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you surprised I get frustrated trying to talk with you? By my reading of that guideline, and my native knowledge of the English language, it is clear to me that the disputed content is NOT related to Rawat's notability. I am prepared to be shown I am mistaken, so I invite you to give an example of how this guideline could exclude content, so I can understand why the disputed content should remain, but you refuse to talk. --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It has already been said, so I do not see the need to repeat it. The material is neither contentious, nor self-serving, and we have multiple sources, not just self-published, so your point is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research doesn't count

Please understand one thing John, one unpublished person disagreeing with a published source doesn't make a claim contentious. And since the article already includes comments about Rawat's income then a precedent has already been established. I'm not going to waste another minute on this.Momento (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I am very surprized to hear this from you'. You have repeatedly removed contents sourced to reputable source, only because you did not agree with them. Andries (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I thought we'd stopped this discussion, but if you are going to misrepresent my position, I will respond. The claims we are talking about are self-published claims where there are no other sources. Misplaced Pages guidelines state that such claims can be included if, amongst other reasons, they are not contentious. So, I hope you are following this. Whatever the authors of this guideline meant, they certainly did not intend 'contentious' to mean that there are rival sources who disagree, because the very guideline specifically states this guideline refers to situations where there are no other sources. --John Brauns (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So Rumition, do you agree that something is contentious only if reliable sources disagree? If so, then this would be a major change of your editorial principles, because in the past you had declared well-sourced contents contentious merely based on your personal subjective assessments. Especially if you did not like what these reliable sources stated. I hope that you finally start behaving consistently and fairly in this matter. Andries (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Criticism

Since there have been well documented criticisms, preserved in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=101616544 it seems only sensible and reasonable to include them on this page if the idea to merge is a good one. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the history of "criticism".Momento (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid this article being inundated with newspaper opinion, this article relies almost entirely on what scholars say about Rawat. Critcism by tabloids, blogs and personal, unmoderated web sites are not acceptable sources.

Momento (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/misc/mdpanel.htm and acknowledge the reliability of the Washington Post when they report "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." This was the Maryland House of Delegates! I know it happened a long time ago, but this is an opinion published by a Government body. It simply must be mentioned be mentioned, perhaps in the article about the Diving Light Mission itself though? What do you think? 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think for a person to represent an organisation denounced in that way and have no indication of it at all on there biography is just not right. The extent of media and published criticism of his organisation is extensive, but there is no indication of it at all in his biography. May I ask if you are directly or indirectly involved with Prem Rawat before continuing this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article about Prem Rawat, not Divine Light Mission. Secondly, it is not an opinion published by a Government body, it is an opinion expressed by a congressman reported in a paper. Thirdly, it is 28 years old. And fourthly, you would do well to read the extensive discussions about this article, including the numerous RFC and independent comments.Momento (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is so much criticism to be found on the Internet of this man, and so much of it is refuted by other sources. When two different sources disagree over someone it is controversy. When controversy occurs to this extent, but is not indicated in an article about the subject on wikipedia (particularly if it is due to the edits of a someone associated with the subject) it is a problem that needs to be fixed. It really is that simple, something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Momento - why do you continue to revert changes to this article? They are cited and well-documented. Additionally the warning to stop reverting posted on your talk page was removed by you as "vandalism." Misplaced Pages suggests that those that are involved with an organization not edit articles related to that organization. Your breach of WP:3RR has been reported.24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It also looks like a whitewash. You can't just revert to a no criticism version if there is in fact significant criticism. Undue weight does not mean delete, but reduce. David D. (Talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat suffers from two major faults. He became a famous religious figure at a young age and he is Indian. He was therefore the object of cheap shots from the media and criticism from a few Christian scholars. Momento (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • The supposed intent of the media is immaterial; the purpose of the article is to reflect an integrated view of the subject. Thus the reason for WP:NPOV.24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is really interested in keeping this article factual and based on excellent scholarly references, please remove 24.98.132.123 (Talk) inclusion of The Register as a source. Thanks.Momento (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than wait for somebody else to remove this properly cited information it appears that you have again reverted this article. I will again remind you of WP:3R. It is unclear why you are so opposed to differing POV on this article. Regards. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My interest is in following Wiki policy. Wowest has now inserted The Register comment about Misplaced Pages into this article despite BLP saying - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". Could someone, even Wowest, please remove this violation.Momento (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well wikipedia policy seems to be if there is significant criticism, in this case the accusations of cult, then they should be mentioned. Guarding an article by deleting all criticism is not policy at wikipedia. Certainly one can discuss how much criticism should be mentioned but it cannot be none. I'd suggest that you mention some source of criticism you find acceptable. Even write a section that you could live with. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Momento, sir. The quotation was inserted by Philippe, not me, then deleted by you as an alleged violation of BLP and your deletion reversed by me, since it clearly was not a violation of BLP. The passage in question merely reflects the credibility of the article itself, which is zero. The article is nothing but an advertisement for Rawatism. Every direct or indirect reference to Rawat, his so-called "Knowledge" or other, superior methods of "meditation" available on the market, which you three deem might take business away from Rawat's enterprise is systematically deleted, isn't it? Even a documented quotation that beneficial results attributed to Transcendental Meditation as a result of experimentation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques was deleted, without discussion, by one of you three. Wowest (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was inserted by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) not by Philippe who protected the page. The article is clearly an attack article and not the best representation of criticism. What serious criticism is out there? David D. (Talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David. There isn't any serious criticism. What criticism there is comes from three sources - An anti Rawat ex-followers group, four or five fundamentalist Christian scholars such as Kranenborg & J. Gordon Melton from the 70s and tabloid beat ups from the 70s. This is one of the most scrupulously researched and sourced articles in Wiki. We have had numerous RFCs and excellent involvement from independent editors. As a result this article is factual and devoid of hype either pro or con.Momento (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How large a proportion of Rawats ex-follows are represented by this group? Are you talking about the people responsible for the ex-premie website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just searching on google for "'Prem Rowat' cult" yields many thousands of results from loads of different sites. If there is that much material expressing these views, shouldn't they be debunked or explained here somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

or not...it's actually only about 850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was right the first time, there are thousands of hits. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=alD&q=%27prem+rawat%27+%2Bcult&btnG=Search&meta= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopedia, it needs high quality sources not internet blogs. And Biographies of Living People require the highest standards of any Wiki articles.Momento (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The evening standard refers to him as a cult leader at least twice last year in separate articles last year, once on the front page. The article doesn't give any indication that a national newspaper has said that about him.

The Evening Standard is a tabloid. See WP:V#Sources, and Misplaced Pages:BLP#Sources, and all the links on the Google search are from self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely neutral here... I'm not bothered with editing the article... but, where in the 2 policies you reference does it say that tabloids are not viable sources? It seems that you are making a link between it being a tabloid and it being unreliable, but I think that's pushing your opinion not what those policies actually state... Onesti (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids can be viable sources for some articles but in Biographies of Living People "Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.". The Evening Standard articles that Anon and Jossi referred to are by the same author Robert Mendick and typical tabloid beat ups. The first one is headed "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor Appeal". This headline is contradicted in the first paragraph of the article. Firstly Rawat is described as a "former" cult leader and then we are told that Rawat is "involved in raising funds". It is obvious the Rawat is not handing over $25,000 in "cash" but "gives cash" sounds more like a drug deal than "giving a donation". In the second article Mendick's headline is "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". In fact, it was a charity event where the public were invited to buy tickets and to which The Prem Rawat Foundation had donated 10,000 pounds and encouraged people to support.Momento (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, when do you think that criticism can be inserted? It has been my experience that you delete any criticism, regardless how well sourced it is. Andries (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic. It makes sense if you think about it. (For the millionth time...) Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

external links

Are all those links official websites of Prem Rawat as stated? Most appear to be independent. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "official" is but they are operated by people or organizations that have permission to use Rawat's speeches.Momento (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But not run by him. Maybe that sub title is not really required? It seems to be a hold over from when there was another section of links. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right.Momento (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

re: No criticism section

what a farce wikipedia can be. Thanks to El Reg for the insight. BTW I'm selling the secret to enlightenment* I hear there's some gullible admins around here I should talk to about enrollment... 86.147.136.81 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Uber-Guru-Money-Plx

1. U.S. Patent Office
2. "Maharaj.org - Answers to common questions)". 1999. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |= ignored (help)

• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics