Talk:Prem Rawat - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Brauns (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 30 December 2007 (→Comments by respondents to the RFC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:04, 30 December 2007 by John Brauns (talk | contribs) (→Comments by respondents to the RFC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

	Biography portal 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

Teachings

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

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

I think the above sentence is OK. But apart from Rawat talked about "Knowledge and inner peace" in the "Childhood" section, the only description of his teachings are the following - "Even though Rawat appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts, it did not prevent his followers from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age. Despite publicly denying any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord" and "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, by 1976 the vast majority of students viewed Rawat primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration. His appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs". These two sections represents a snapshot of 2 or 3 years of Rawat's teachings in 73 and 75/76 but where are the all other sentences that cover his teachings from 1966 to 2007? We're illustrating changing points in Rawat's life telling bits about his teachings that are not representative. It should all be in the teachings article were we describe the teachings in greater scope and the above pieces can be seen in context.Momento (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are three sources omitted that state that Rawat claimed to be an incarnation of God (kranenborg, Melton, and Hummel)? This article is totally non-NPOV and violates policies. Andries (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there are dozens of quotes from scholars and Rawat saying he isn't. And this article is about Rawat, not his teachings. If you care to go to the Teachings article, you will find - "Sants believe that the Satguru or Perfect Master is an embodiment of God on earth and a fitting object of worship and veneration".Momento (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

What a joke! You and Ruminton get to write this article to suit your tastes and nobody can be bothered anymore to try and put the mirror up to your obvious and toe-curling partiality. Most of what is now in the teachings section is made up by you two Punch and Judy's as far as I can tell. How you can do this with a clear conscience after you've religiously disallowed so many other people from summarising in their own words God only knows. What is the source of all this for example? Who said this?

Prem Rawat's early western discourses were based largely on references from Indian mythology. After his marriage in 1974 he began to draw more on his growing personal experiences as a teacher, parent and international traveller, and colored his talks with stories and allegories in which the listener could find their own understanding. According to several scholars, his teachings began in the traditions of the North Indian Sants, who dismiss ritual and dogma and focus on direct inner experience. In accordance with Sant precepts he has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, PatW (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web archive source

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

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

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

Yes, Jossi, I'm giving you a chance to be objective, and to respect your role as a Misplaced Pages admin. Even though it is possible, IF you know the URL (I couldn't find the page without knowing the URL on the Wayback site), to dredge up an archived page of a website, the owner of which no longer has on his site, there is no supporting evidence that the claims are even true. Yes, we could keep the claims in the article, but it would have to be with the conditional text such as "According to a page on a previous version of Rawat's website, maharaji.org, which no longer appears on his site, ..... etc." Do you really think this information about him is sufficiently notable to be included in this article? Compare this, and its source, with the information about Davis and Hoffman about Rawat at Millennium - the latter is far more notable, and much better sourced. Jossi you know you wouldn't win this if we took it to arbitration, so why waste our time? --John Brauns (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FYY, the arbitration committee does not deal with content disputes. And yes, the text of a site that has been re-placed with a new version, is usable in an article if it can be verified. And yes, a person's personal skills and certifications can be included in biographical articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that he support himself as a private investor, because that is controversial information and self-published sources are not good enough for that. It is controversial because other third-party reputable sources say that he lived from donations of his followers. Andries (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Many articles about people in Wiki include a little bit about their personal life that is often sourced from the only source available, that is the subject of the article or subject's family or biography i.e. not sourced from independent scholarly sources. In this case it is non-controversial, it is part of a "personal" section and comes from the subject's website, old or not. Wiki also uses Rawat's history of masters from that website. It is done in good faith and it's hard to see why you object to it.Momento (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was on his current site, and preceded by 'According to his personal website, Rawat ...... etc.' then your argument might have some weight, but if Rawat chooses not to have this claim on his website, then it shouldn't be here. For all we know, the startups he mentioned might have since failed. I would also argue that the claims of lineage also shouldn't be included if the Wayback site is the only source. --John Brauns (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What startups are you referring? That is only your' perception based on faulty data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I disagree - the claim that he contributed to successful startups is exceptional, as there is no reported evidence that Rawat has ever given from his own wealth for the benefit of others. Even the foundation that bears his name goes out of its way to state that Rawat receives nothing from the foundation, whereas it is normal for such foundations to receive endowments from the founder. No, as an exceptional claim, it needs to be better sourced or removed. --John Brauns (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not. What is verifiable is what he said on his website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Both the text from Maharaji.org and the text from the TPRF website can be used. Both. I would suggest you self-revert your deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re "contributed to startups" I find this an interesting aspect of the subject. I have done this myself, starting a company with friends some 7 years ago. It is not an act of charity, and no one familiar with business terminology would think it was, but it is, let me assure you, a leap of faith. Rumiton (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

if it got deleted once from it's own web resource it might not be true anymore, this is not just poorly referenced but no reference at all89.247.15.184 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Also please sign your username as an article of good faith. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At least the explicit attribution to his obsolete personal website should go again. I will file a request for comments if you continue to disagree. Andries (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. Request away. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I think if you read the requirements for special neutrality in articles on living persons in conjunction with a study of the need for unbiased sources, most of the problems you have had with obtaining agreement will go away. You have been told that by experienced editors and Misplaced Pages administrators about a million times. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources can be used. No source is without bias. Andries (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Maharaji's personal website that you think is okay as a source is unbiased? Andries (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "biased" about quoting from a resume? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We can simply add: His résumé posted on his website in 1999 lists skills in computer graphics and computer-aided design... and be done with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

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)

RfC: Self-published content

Template:RFCbio

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:

If the material described above were added, what would the actual problem and impact be? Not "it's a problem because it's disputed", but very specifically: what impression would it give, what impact would this addition have, and in which ways would it conflict with other statements from other sources?
WP:NPOV asserts that we acknowledge all significant viewpoints. Try this:
"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)

(Removed inappropriate comments) 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)

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

Categories: