Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:38, 26 January 2009

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: 5 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

	Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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 This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

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.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index 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 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

Interesting-looking Italian article

My Italian is too basic to make much headway but maybe someone else can tell us what this is about? ] Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Google translates the title as "Agrigento: pacifist Maharaji guest of honor at Almond Flower Festival". So it appears to be another "keys to the city"-type event. Per discussions here, Rawat is not a pacifist, so that's either an error or a mistranslation. The text appears to use the formula "Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji," which is standard in Rawat's press releases. What about it looks interesting? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have used an on-line translator myself, but people who have worked in the field know that they are useless for anything beyond nursery rhymes. Can any Italian speaker help us with some insight into this article? Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" - into Russian and back became "The wine's ok, but the meat is spoiled." (anecdotal) I am unsure as to the wisdom of using any foreign language sources in any BLPs at all -- minor nuances once lost can not be regained. I think "pacifista" translates better as "peace-loving" than as "pacifist" with its political overtones. Collect (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikifriends, if this may help, in Spanish "pacifista" is a political term, "pacífico" is rather peaceful than pacifist, Spaniards called the Pacific Ocean pacific when they saw it first on a peaceful day on the beach, I am sure when they had to cross it through a storm they thought about the name. In Italian I suppose it is the same. I agree with Rumiton (this time not because we are both premies, but because we are both translators) that it is risky to use foreign languages when it is virtually impossible to know even your mother tongue completely. I have another translator's joke about semantics.

A man booked a "spiritual holiday" with a travel agency of alternative holidays, when he got there he saw everybody drunk, asked where was the spiritual holiday and they said: "Of course this is a spiritual holiday, we are drinking spirits." The reason why I like this joke is probably because I made it up.

A little humor from time to time will give this discussion page a better atmosphere. We may create an International Prem's Discussion Page Humor Award for the editor with the best humor. Ironic jokes admitted only if in mild forms.

If it may also help in the subject, Yogananda says it is an obligation to love your country and that someone who does not love his country cannot love God, but countries should not attack others. It is legitimate and morally compulsory to resist and fight injustice, and to defend one's country from outer attack and to participate in "just wars", but he admits this may be difficult to know in certain cases, and in case of doubt reccommends to consult a wise and respected guru. So this seems to agree more with peaceful than with pacifist.

This seems to be the traditinal yoga doctrine, and everything I have heard Prem say along many years is classical yoga doctrine, but in a simple vocabulary that even a child may understand. Some "scholar" calls it therefore "banal" in Prem's biography, perhaps he finds children banal and/or anything not in expressed in sophisticated intellectual or technical jargon, we do not know his definition of "banal". He should explain in 2008 why a banal message has had an increasing audience of intellectuals ever since he said that. But he was not a prophet, only an intellectual. Prem's joke about intellectuals: "An intellectual is a person who always thinks he is right and the other guy is wrong, even when the other guy says the same". I like it a lot. Of course there are humble intellectuals too, it is only a joke.

I have never heard Prem say anything about politics, except that the problem is not politics itself, but how it is carried out. I am pleased to take the opportunity to wish YOU all Merry Xmas and a prosperous, best ever year 2009.--Pedrero (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't see anything noteworthy about one Italian newspaper -- whose background is not known -- calling Rawat a peacemaker, even if that is a correct translation (which is not certain). Can any one explain how that is not simple promotion of Rawat? Imagine if the Elie Wiesel page listed every time he was called something positive like that. It would be 500 megabytes in length. I'm inclined to remove that line.Msalt (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be notable, just verifiable. If you want to shorten the article I suggest you start with the numerous sentences about money in the "Coming of age" section. It's way over the top.Momento (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal physician

I have always wondered about this. No doubt reputable sources say so, but it seems a strange thing to me for a private doctor to go public in this way with his patient's medical history. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of this subject's life isn't unusual? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The physician may still be active. I see this from 18 months ago: "A Message of Peace: The Wisdom of Prem Rawat - Guest Speaker: Dr. John Horton". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many aspects of Prem Rawat's life that lie far outside the norm, but this example still makes me uncomfortable. I checked, and confidentiality is not just advisable for practitioners, it is mandatory. See ]. If Prem Rawat was the victim of indiscreet public statements by his physician, then Misplaced Pages should not perpetuate this. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that he talked to the press without the knowledge or approval of his patient. We have no evidence of that. It's more logical to assume that he was acting as a spokesman. Regardless, the diagnosis has been so thoroughly publicized that it's a part of the subject's life story. It's not our job to suppress widely reported information. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It may appear "more logical" that he was a spokesman, but it's still an assumption. On the face of it he released his opinion on his patient's state of health in defiance of medical etiquette. I can't think of any reason why PR (or anyone else) would want information like that released. He did not cancel any speaking engagements because of health problems. Anyway, there are more important areas to look at in this article. Rumiton (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, ther is a properly sourced reference for this point. IMHO, it's up to you to show evidence that it's not proper, or it should stay. Others have provided substantial evidence that Horton remains an authorized spokesman for Rawat.Msalt (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a source for Rawat cancelling two engagements, one in Atlanta and one on the Dick Cavett Show, in the month between the Detroit incident and the hospitalization. It doesn't say why the events were canceled, though.   Will Beback  talk  17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, there are plenty of times when celebrities give permission to their doctors to release information to the press about their health status when they are hospitalized. They do this in order to stop the press's rumor mill from speculating about their health. My guess is that the press knew Rawat was admitted to a hospital, (easy to find that out) so Dr. Horton spoke to the press with permission. Btw, Dr. Horton was also the doctor to the ashram premies when a couple hundred of us (DECA, DLM full-timers, and many instructors/mahatmas) lived in the Broadripple Hotel Ashram (Dr. Horton lived there too) during the B707 project in 1979-81ish. I got to know Dr. Horton at the time because I saw him for some of my own medical issues back them. He was a always an honorable professional, based on my assessments then. I don't think Dr. Horton would have said anything to the press without Maharaji's explicit permission. In fact, it's illegal for any any American doctor to disclose personal medical information without their patient's permission, and I can't imagine John Horton doing that. It's legally confidential information second only to a lawyer/client privilege. I hope this assuages your concerns. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, I don't see it as a big deal. Glad you had a good interaction with the doctor. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

EPO link

Misplaced Pages article links must meet the same standards as the sources we use. The site you are trying to link to is self-published and anonymous, and appears to exist only to denigrate the subject of this Living Biography. It falls far short of Misplaced Pages standards for a reputable source. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. This issue was discussed extensively here and resolved some time ago. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, you know very well that ex-premie.org is not anonymously webmastered, and that the authors of ALL the substantive information on Prem Rawat are NOT anonymous. Also, it is a site providing information, NOT an attack site. Do not use these talk pages to further your propaganda. As the webmaster of the site I believe the link should be included, but I will allow others to argue the case if they choose to do so. Also, I have undone one of your 'tweak' edits. 'Universally' is an absolute, so something cannot be 'more universally accepted'. 'Broadly' was fine. --John Brauns (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem with "broadly" but we both know very well that most of the contributors to your website are pseudonymous. They express their views with no editorial control and face no legal redress. They have no working reputation to lose if what they write is challenged. Therefore the site does not meet the standards of a reputable source. This is not my "propaganda"; judgement on the issue was made definitively. I will go through the archives to find the threads if needed. As a matter of interest, did you amend your site to include the "information" I gave you re various situations at Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing my forum, where about half the contributors are anonymous, with ex-premie.org, where no one but myself and Jean-Michel Khan can update, and where I do not allow any substantive allegation against Prem Rawat that is from an anonymous source, and without corroboration. Is it possible you haven't actually read the site? Anyway, your comments about Amaroo were fairly trivial, and as you are anonymous, I couldn't include the information anyway. --John Brauns (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that the opinions or statements of any ex-premies websites or organizations and of people like Bob Mischler should be in Prem's biography. They may be considered hate groups who say nothing about Prem and a lot about themselves. Misplaced Pages should be above all that or include hate groups statements in ALL biographies and articles of religious or spiritual nature. Same rule for all, please.--Pedrero (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, I am not arguing for the link to my site to be included, so you can relax. But please do not use this site to make false personal attacks against me such as saying I am in a 'hate group'. I am not by any accepted definition of the term. If there is content on my site that you think is inaccurate, please write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. This is not the place for such discussions. --John Brauns (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you do want your site to express the truth, will you post a short article written by me (real-life name used) which contains easily verifiable information on Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk (corrected email address). --John Brauns (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will gather some facts and prepare a short article. Rumiton (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I have no problem in removing discussions that do not relate to article improvements but make sure you do not allow false statements to remain unchallenged. --John Brauns (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Editors should not make a habit of deleting comments on talk pages. If a posting needs to be deleted or modified because is outrageously offensive, obviously violates BLP, or is completely off-topic, then it'd be better to ask an uninvolved party to make the redaction or strikeout. Let's not pick fights.   Will Beback  talk  15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ex premie.org restored in moderated form

The arguments regarding the inclusion of Ex premie.org in the external links section, have failed to address relevant WP policy and guidelines – these are the only basis for reasoned discussion on this talk page – particularly given the ongoing probation status of the article.

The term Attack site WP:BADSITES does not apply and the description attack site in respect of Ex premie.org is confusing at best and its further use on this talk page could be considered deliberate WP:UNCIVIL

The operative guideline is Misplaced Pages:External links WP:EL and all further discussion on the Ex premie.org external link should be based on that document. As an acknowledgement of the continuing debate I have set the link in plain text as suggested at ] however as Ex premie.org clearly meets the tests under What_should_be_linked ]notably:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

there is a burden upon those that oppose the inclusion of the Ex.premie.org link, to make a reasoned argument why the link should not be a live one, rather than just saying they don’t like it. Failure to to act reasonably will inevitably require action under the article probation arrangements.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

- I think that Nik Wright2 is right. The link to Ex-Premie.org should be a hyperlink. Having a hyperlink to the homepage of someone who is frequently called a 'cult leader', and a plain text link to the detractors threatens the unbiased position of a wikipedia article. The article should include both sides of the issue for those who are interested in learning more. Tom renault (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by all this! The article in 'The Register' that led me to all this seemed to suggest that the person who'd been forcing the Mr Gee article to be all positive and excluding any factual information that he thought wasn't positive enough had removed himself after being found out as a supporter. It seems from all the above that there are other partisan supporters doing the same thing to the page. Would it be better to exclude, altogether, articles about cult leaders if it they are sending cult members to beautify them? What happens when an innocent person, directed from, say, cultwatch, to here finds a hagiography? It is one thing to find gush and flim-flam on cult site, but surely wikipaedia should be for articles about genuinely significant people that are objective? I agree that, reading some of the detail of the discussions last year, much of the nature of this particular cult leader becomes clear - but certainly not from the article itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you know about this subject is what you read in the Register, you'll be more than a bit confused. I will respond to the other issues tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted undiscussed edit by User:Pongostick--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed and decided months/years ago. You're welcome to have another discussion about but until Wiki changes it's policy or you can find consensus to make an exception to this article stop making disruptive edits.Momento (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your vandalisation of the article. How on earth you can see removing vandalism as disruptive, I can't imagine. I'm not confused by the Register. It seems that it, and wikipaedia are showing exactly the same thing, this article is being controlled by cult members. This seems quite wrong. I suggest that the entire article, and connected ones, are put in a delete area until there can be agreement on an honest way forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you sound confused. Your description of Jossi's situation is lifted straight from the Register, and is wrong. Jossi posted under his own name and declared his conflict of interest from the outset. He obeyed all the requirements of Misplaced Pages in his editing, including confining himself to non-controversial edits, and was commended by the Misplaced Pages community for doing so. Your statement "...removed himself after being found out" is entirely wrong and highly offensive. Check your facts. Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of intense discussions, numerous RFCs and several arbitrations and the end result is that the only link that has been accepted for over 12 months is Prem Rawat's personal website. You may think that anti-links should be allowed on BLPs but the Misplaced Pages community disagrees.Momento (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento your response is spurious, none of the things you quote has anything substantive on whether or not the words 'ex premie.org' or a live link to Ex premie. org can appear on the PR article page. If you believe that previous discussions have arrived at a consensus please provide the diffs - otherwise stop reverting without justification, it's the kind of behaviour that has had you banned on previous ocassions. I have restored the plain text version while discussions continue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 41.223.60.60 (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost got it. The way it actually works is changes are proposed and then discussed. If consensus is achieved the changes are made. Not, make changes without consensus and then discuss.Momento (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of providing a live link to Ex-premie.org. I also object to any charaterization here of EPO or ex-premies as being members of a "hate-group" as those are unfounded allegations asserted by Elan Vital Australia only. There are no other such allegations anywhere else in the world besides Elan Vital-Au, Rawat's supporting organization. I ask that Pedrero refactor (remove) his comment immediately as it is a personal attack and uncivil. Also want to remind editors that this and other Prem Rawat articles are still under ARBCOM probation and therefore more strict rules apply to reverting edits and civility. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that insults are unhelpful, but to include a site which contains (on its Home Page) one-click links to discussions forums where vilification of the subject is applauded (am I going too far? I think not) would be to make a mockery of Living Biographies. Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're going way, way too far. We're discussing EPO. Unless you are a legal representative of Prem Rawat (in which case this is the wrong place to express those concerns) you ought to stop your characterizations of ex-premies and what they say on an unrelated website, and right now. You've gone way too far, Rumiton. And stop your baiting, please. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The repeated inclusion of the ex-premie link violates WP:EL - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." It also violates WP:SPS - "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources". Until these policies change it will never be allowed.Momento (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. EPO is neither a questionable source nor a source of dubious value nor a "self-published source." Actually, that last criterion is rather vague and inappropriate. Who wrote it? Let me guess. EPO provides valuable consumer information on the harmful and worthless practices called "The Knowledge" which are propagated by Prem Rawat and his minions and competitors. It's taught for free? In that case, it's overpriced. There are worthwhile forms of meditation in the world, but Rawat isn't promoting any of those. Wowest (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Read all the sentence. Is it derogatory? Yes it is. So it "should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". Is it published by a reliable third party? No it isn't. It is self published. So as far as Wiki is concerned, it's out.Momento (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, you are giving your opinion about the Knowledge techniques and expecting it to be received as "information." This is exactly the problem with the ex-premie site. The posters there confirm each others opinions, then expect to get the same reception elsewhere. We would all like our opinions to be absolutely valued, and maybe there is some parallel universe for each of us where this happens. That would be called Heaven. But here on Earth there is disagreement. How do we resolve this difficulty? In Misplaced Pages, we use reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento & Rumiton - are you deliberately obfuscating the meaning of "source" ? Or have you both made exactly the same error ? No one has included material that is 'sourced' to Ex premie.org. All that has happened is that a relevant entry has been made in the external links section. The relevance is unequivocal, however in the light of your opposition and as a compromise I made the link plain text as suggested at WP:EL - it is now only civil of you to explain why under WP:EL Ex premie.org should not be a live link.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good handle on the word "source." External links are sources for the information in a Misplaced Pages article and must be reputable, especially for a Living Biography. See WP:EL and scroll down to the paragraph, In biographies of living people. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

An external link may be a source of information 'within' an article but equally it may be a source of information relevant to, but not containable in an article - which is the point at issue, so "source" in WP terms has no issue here. What you appear to be concerned with is: Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline. In which case it is up to you to demonstrate why Ex premie.org "contradicts the spirit of WP:BLP", additionally you must explain why "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." does not apply to Ex premie.org, and then why "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."does not apply to Ex premie.org. Unless either you/and or Momento start to address these substantive questions other editors will be inevitably drawn to conclude that you are merely being tendentious - WP:TE You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comment again without explaining why.--Pedrero (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, the site you link to libels several named people, including myself. One of the libelled persons has already taken legal action against the site owner, and he has removed the libellous material and issued an apology. I and others don't have the money to take legal action but that doesn't give you the right to link to the site from here. --John Brauns (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

John Browns, your website libels Prem, but you and others mention it here repeatedly. Why do you think you have the right to do something but deny the same right to others? If you want WP to mention your website here why don't you preach with example and mention in yours? Why has nobody in WP been able to stop this for years? In the Netherlands they have been too politically correct and too tolerant with the intolerant for decades, until they have finally understood that tolerance, like everything, must have limits. Why can't any WP authority who is not a premie stop the absurdity of 39 discussion pages x tens of thousands words each one, going on for years, mainly due to the fact that a few dozen expremies suffer a life long obsession with defaming Prem, out of the half a million to one million expremies I guess there are? I think it is time for WP to learn what the Dutch have learned. If you delete a third time the name of the website I mention I will do the same with yours.----Pedrero (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Pedrero, that website libels ex-premies who are private individuals (unlike Prem Rawat who is a public person) who are also Misplaced Pages editors, myself included. It was the subject of a recent California defamation lawsuit in which Jossi Fresco and the website's owner, Geoff Staker, were named parties. As a result of court settlement, the website's owner was forced to remove the defamation material (including photos of her) against Marianne Bachers, a reputable civil rights attorney in San Francisco, with an apology. Please don't reference it nor link to it here anymore. See MARIANNE BACHERS VS. DOES 1 TO 20,INCLUSIVE. I would suggest that Prem Rawat adherents lower their level of vitriol here. This is a discussion about one link to a website that has been in existence for over ten years without any legal action taken against it's owner(s) by Prem Rawat for libel. Also, Rainer P.'s comparison below of ex-premie.org to the KKK, demonstrates that he has no understanding of what a real hate group is or how one operates, especially in the U.S. One again, the only entity in the world that accuses ex-premies of being a hate group is Elan Vital-Australia in its FAQ. Finally, I consider the comments made today by adherents here to be in violation of NPA and are most uncivil to fellow editors. I ask that those editors calm down and perhaps take a breather. Thank you, Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not know these facts.--Pedrero (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think there should be a link to the Ku Klux Klan site in the Obama article, in order to keep it from otherwise being tendentious? I understand, lately they have been gaining publicity, haven't they.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, I understand the point you are making but please do not refer to other non-reputable sources here. Such sources effectively do not exist for Misplaced Pages purposes, and doing so can only escalate the difficulties we are facing. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not know these facts.--Pedrero (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the logic and policy interpretations I see above, and which were used to justify edit warring over this external link. I also disagree with suggestions that we should edit this article differently because of the presence or absence of any specfic editor. Regardless of those two matters, i repeat my strong support for the previous consensus that we shoould include only one single external link at the end of the article: the subject's personl site. There are several reasons for this to be found in the basic external links guideline. As a prctical matter, disputes over external linking seem to lead editors of this article into unproductive fights. In light of the consensus on this matter over the past 9(?) months and this latest edit war,, editors should find agreement before making additions to the list of external links of this article.   Will Beback  talk  15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not to link to other relevant sites? For example: http://mspeaks.com - http://tprf.org and others which are directly related to Prem Rawat? The fact that a site such as the one being discussed cannot be included due to the living people policy, it should not be an impediment to include other useful sites. Right? PongoStick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pongostick (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree Pongostick. We have been limited to one link Maharaji.net because several editors disagreed with the logic and policy interpretations that prohibit the defamatory EPO site and a compromise was made. Now that the link to the EPO site has been clearly excluded by an independent admin and his judgement seconded by a member of the Mediation Cabal , I think we can conclude that issue is dead. I agree with WillBeBack that we shouldn't edit this article differently because of the presence or absence of any specfic editor and that includes Will. So now Rawat should be given the same treatment as any other person, therefore links to the PR Foundation, MSpeaks. Words of Peace etc should be included.Momento (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the long-standing consensus of retaining just one link. If editors want to add more links they need to get a new consensus. As I have in the past, I will remove any links that don't have a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:CON "Consensus" between a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome". WP:EL "What should be linked" says

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as interview transcripts) or other reasons". The links I recommended fall into this category and consensus to exclude them or lack of consensus to include cannot override the community consensus that produced the guideline.Momento (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That guideline allows, but does not require, the inclusion of other links. There is no community consensus to include the specific links you mention. Any discussion of links is likely to lead to further unproductive diusputes, which is why the existing consensus has been upheld over and over again. Unless it is the aim of editors to forment disputes, I strongly suggest dropping this suggestion. If there is important material that should be inclued in this article, then let's include it. We don't nee more links. Links, by themselves, don't further the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is you don't need to have extra consensus to follow policies or guidelines. The consensus to have one link was arrived at because editors like you refused to accept that EPO was an unsuitable link. Now that it has been disallowed, we can move on. Let's see what others say.Momento (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that rationale. If links are useful, then they are useful, e.g. a link to the site of the charity Prem founded, and the site that carry webcasts of his speeches. PongoStick

If there is a new consensus to add additional links then that's great. However the existing consensus has been to limit the article to a single link in order to avoid disputes. Jossi was also a strong supporter of that consensus, and the fact that he's left does not mean that we should immediately review previous consensuses. Links to sites created by supporters and detractors of the subject are not necessary to complete this article.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With the rejection of EPO there will be no disputes. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia to inform, a link to Prem Rawat's official foundation is appropriate, as is the Words of Peace website. No one has suggested to link to the numerous unofficial fan sites. This, or any, article cannot exist if one person can object to an edit that conforms in every way to every Wiki policy and guideline.Momento (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this encyclopedia is not to be a directory of websites. If more information is needed and appropriate for this article then let's add it directly. The TPRF and other sites are linked from the Maharaji.net home page so interested readers can find them easily.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above, I believe your bias is leading you to try to play down the significance of the Arbitration Enforcement decision made by user:Sandstein and supported by other administrators. We are not omitting the ex-premie site from the article because we have a consensus to do so, but because the website ...appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him, including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails Misplaced Pages:EL#In biographies of living people. No amount of consensus can make such a link acceptable in a BLP. The other links are open to negotiation. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the one link to Maharaji.net is adequate for this biography, lest the perception be formed that adherents want to make this a promotional article rather than a BLP. Misplaced Pages isn't the only source on the internet for finding out about Prem Rawat, after all. All one has to do is type any of Rawat's various monikers into Google and a large number of websites are made available there, including contact material. Inclusion of the EPO link is now a moot argument, so please let's move on. There's no reason to escalate this particular argument anymore, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on improving the article, not on fighting over external links.   Will Beback  talk  14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

External links are an important part of the article. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because?   Will Beback  talk  12:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you have unilaterally removed a link from the EV article without discussion or consensus. Yet here you say we cannot add a link without consensus, meaning your approval. Here's some examples of people whose article contains a helpful link to their foundations. A link to the Prem Rawat Foundation is the quickest way for readers to get up to date info on the subject of this article. Have you got a policy or guideline reason to substantiate your threat to "remove any links that don't have a consensus" when you don't need consensus to remove links?Momento (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus for new links. The previous consensus to limit the article to one link has prevented unproductive fights.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can, and does, change as the article does. I suggest the current consensus needs to be that we include external links that provide useful information (as distinct from opinion, slander and vituperation) on the subject. There are many to choose from. Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can, but so far I don't see any consensus for including more links. If folks convince the editors here to add more then we can have a new consensus. So far I don't tsee that consensus. Considering that the previous consensus kept the matter free from disputes, and that the external links have repeatedly been the source of disputes, I don't see any hurry to add more. Is the article incomplete without more links? No, i don't think it is. If we need to add actual material to the article then let's add that material to the text. The suggested links are not neutral, and so do not comply with BLP.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AE notification

• Violations of Arbitration enforcement notified

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Prem_Rawat --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, we have been through this. Consensus was, we put the official link, nothing else. Jayen466 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was when the site was under control of cult members. As reported in 'The Register':

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/fresco_retires_from_wikipedia/

Jossi Fresco apparently left wikipaedia, so there is now a chance of this article being updated accurately. Cult members excluding valuable information from an ex-cult member site makes no sense if you are to have a genuinely useful and encyclopaedic article. Otherwise it is simply hagiography and the article should be deleted. 41.223.60.60 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just about everything in the Register article is wrong, and you are embarassing yourself by quoting it here. That article is part of an anti-Misplaced Pages campaign, and is not intended to be even read by active Misplaced Pages editors. It is for the titillation of people who don't know any better. Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton is incorrect about the Register article, which is almost entirely accurate except for a few details. But it reflects the past, assuming Jossi does not return. Let's not focus on individual editors. Every article on Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and every article can be improved. However this article is not so bad that it should stubbed and rewritten. If there are specific errors or omissions then we can deal with those.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"It reflects the past"? Metz says, for years, Jossi Fresco maintained strict control over the site's Prem Rawat article and countless related articles last year, during multiple email exchanges, he denied any conflict of interest. Jossi edited under his own name and declared his conflict of interest from the start, and followed all Misplaced Pages guidelines and decisions. And I think everyone can see that nobody can "maintain strict control" over ANY Misplaced Pages article that enough people care about, which is the case here. "...almost entirely accurate except for a few details"? You must be joking. Your statement is an insult to Jossi and Misplaced Pages. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion. That's OK. These issues aren't relevant to future improvements to the article.   Will Beback  talk  14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's another difference of opinion, and I don't think it is OK at all. If Jossi "maintained strict control" over these articles, then there was no consensus. The fact is that a great deal of negotiation has taken place throughout, and the Register author is being deliberately deceitful to create an artificial sensation. These are not "a few details," just as trying to insert a derogatory link into a BLP is not a "minor infringement." You can't have it both ways, Will. Are you going to admit you were wrong? Rumiton (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss Jossi. What does this have to do with future improvements to the article?   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? If the Register is right, then we have no consensus for the current state of this article. If the Register is seriously wrong, then so are you. If that is the case you should admit it so we can maove on. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep asking, I think that Jossi continuously violated the WP:COI guideline and his repeated promises to not edit the topic. I think he made even graver violations of Misplaced Pages policy and abused the trust of the community. I do not think that this article is perfect, but it is good enough that I don't feel a need to apply tags or stub it or anything like that. I look forward to working with other editors to continue improving it.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are answering the question you want to answer and ignoring the point I raised. What sort of editing behaviour is this? Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stop this now. This argument is not helpful and it is definitely not the subject of this article. This is not not unhelpful and and it's bordering on uncivil. All of you, please, stop this now, or if you must go on bickering about it, please take your arguments about the Register article elsewhere. Enough is enough already. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. So let's now develop a consensus on what external links should be allowed in these articles. Seems to me the onus is on those who want to restrict them to just one or two to explain why (in Misplaced Pages terms) they think this is desirable. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Limiting external links to two - Compromise Proposal

In an effort to avoid a long, protracted argument over placing additional external links to Rawat-related websites, I propose that only two are used: Prem Rawat's personal website, Maharaji.org, and The Prem Rawat Foundation website, tprf.org. While I don't believe that any additional links to Rawat's personal site are required because all the Rawat-related site are linked to each other, I also don't see any usefulness in arguing for a month over this very minor issue. Therefore, I hope for a quick compromise and consensus among editors about this in the next couple of days. Let's stop the edit-warring now. Please state your agreement or disagreement to limiting EL to two links only, below. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree to limiting EL to two Rawat links. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Can't see the point in limiting to two. If additional links provide a better picture of PR and his work and are not derogatory, let's use them. They take up very little space. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not willing to go with more than two ELs. All of the official links for Prem Rawat have "Link" sections that lead anyone to any other pertinent sites that any human being could ever desire to read. There is contact information for any reader on those various websites and FAQ. You won on the EPO link, please don't press this. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sylviecyn, I agree with your proposal, I find it reasonable, you have pleasantly surprised me. Thank you very much. Hallo Rumiton, my Dutch trading sense (learned here in NL, not born with it) tells me it is wise to accept the proposal, it is twice as good as what "we have", and this does not exclude that in the future Sylviecyn (and perhaps also Will Beback, but no hope with Mr./Mrs. 41.223.60.60) will continue being generous and we might have three links. Be patient, Rumitorn, don't ask too much, better two birds in your hand than some more in the bush. Is a little humor alright? Where are the independent or neutral voices? I mean neither premies nor expremies, because right now this looks like a tennis doubles match, with Sylviecyn and Will Beback against Momento and Rumiton. I cannot play, I have too much work and little time, and cannot even be referee. If no 3rd party referee/s come to help, this is probably going to be a long match and, unlike in tennis, there is no tie-break here.--Pedrero (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in this at all. The two links currently there are cult sites and hagiographic, for encyclopaedic balance the views of ex-cult members is important. I'd argue for no links at all or to include the link to the site that provides information that is not controlled by the cult. I don't see this as any sort of compromise at all, quite the reverse, actually. 41.223.60.60 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Mr./Mrs. 41.223.60.60, do you think the prestigious universities, World Forum, United Nations, etc. and the many intellectuals who attend his speeches consider Prem a cult leader in 2008? I agree Prem could be considered a cult leader in the seventies, but I do not think many institutions consider Prem a cult leader in 2008, I rather think the therm "cult leader" is nowadays mainly used (repeatedly, mantra-style), by you and a few expremies more, out of hundreds of thousands. In what year do you live? And talking about cults, few can see the difference between western cults and eastern cults. Do you know many cases of easter "cult leaders" that ended up like Jim Jones or like David Koresh? It seems unlikely that the Dalai Lama, for instance, is likely to organise a good-bye party Jim Jones style. Could you let us know whether you are a man or a woman, so I do not need to write Mr./Mrs.?. Thanks.--Pedrero (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please folks, let's keep the subject of this section to the EL issue and not extend it to a discussion about cults. This is just not the place to have these discussions. I'm trying to turn a new leaf here about keeping to the subject on the talk pages, please help me do that. Cheers! Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Sylviecyn, and Pedrero, your Dutch trading sense might be right. 2 links then. But what about when someone who has just watched Prem Rawat on Maharaji Speaks or YouTube or somewhere, comes here and inserts their link? What do we tell them? We (it sounds almost royal) have agreed not to use that link? We need a good reason, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Compromises and consensuses aside, there is a clear logic for including TPRF.org, which is that the TPRF article was deleted and redirected here. While the subject does not appear to have any formal connection to the foundation, he does say that he founded it. As for other links, they need to be justified individually. Misplaced Pages is not a link directory. To be consuistent, if we exclude links becuase they are not neutral because they include negative assessments, then we also need to exclude non-neutral positive websites. But I discourage us from devoting time to links - experience shows that we can get into protacted disputes and the links do little to help the actual article.   Will Beback  talk  16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat, what exactly is he?

An article intro should clearly state up front what the subject of the article is. I changed the first sentence to read, basically, that "Prem Rawat is a guru." This was reverted with the summary, "Guru is what he used to be." So, what is he now? Televangelist? Teacher? Preacher? Religious leader? Philosopher? Wealthy, self-employed businessman? Entrepreneuer? Philanthropist? Missionary? All of these things? Whatever he is, it needs to state it in the first sentence. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. He's a spiritual leader . I'll change the intro. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cla68 that the first sentence should say what PR is rather than what he was. His most consistent and widely accepted occupation is "teacher", an expanded description follows in the lead. In addition to his teaching activities he is also involved in philanthropic pursuits.Momento (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) has only been in existence since 2001 so the moniker "philanthropist" is misleading and there's no source for it other than his own foundation. Besides, TPRF spends far more money promoting Rawat and his travel than it does on charities -- that's according to its own financial reports, btw. Btw, why is TPRF, a primary source, being used to desribe what he is? If he's going to be called a teacher, then "meditation teacher" is a more accurate description. Btw, why isn't "Knowledge" (the name of the meditation techniques he teaches) in the lede? He's not a "spiritual leader" either. According to his websites what Rawat teaches isn't a religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc. "He is the leader of a new religious movement" is a more accurate description. For the time period 1966 through around 1982 when his name and title was Guru Maharaj Ji. He only dropped the title for the sake of appearances. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. What is he now? He is now a former guru, formerly accused of being a cult-leader who has mended his ways and has given back all of the ill-gotten money he extracted from his mesmerized following in the past. That's true, isn't it?Wowest (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, what you are doing here is called baiting. It is irritating, but isn't going to get the reaction you seem to want. Please stop doing it. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wowest, your personal page is fantastic. I do not know whether this is an acceptable reaction or not, but please let me recomend you to forget about Prem Rawat and read "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ" by Paramahansa Yogananda. I was born in a Catholic family in 1944, and always liked to read the Bible and think about the mysterious sentences, and I only understood it completely after that book, published in 2004. I you like it, "Krishna Talks to Arjuna" is my second favourite. Despite the names, both books are 70 % psychology, one of the interests we share. Yogananda rarely or never touched money with his hands as an adult, his followers did, so he would have time for better things, and the same with Prem. I wish you a nice day.--Pedrero (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento made an edit that deleted names of the subject which we've discussed at great length previously. He also inserted "philanthropist", for which we don't even have a neutral source. I have restored the names and the title "spiritual teacher", and removed "philanthropist".   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 26 January 2009

Please do not harass me. Your claim that you have "restored the names and the title "spiritual teacher" "is completely false. The name "Lord of the Universe" which you claim to have "restored" was first inserted less than 24 hours ago without discussion and not discussed a "great length previously". The same applies to "spiritual teacher" which was inserted yesterday without discussion. Cla68 made the sensible suggestion that the article should start in the "present". No one has objected to that and therefore changes need to be made to accommodate that. Rawat is a "philanthropist" as is covered in the article "In 2001, Rawat founded the The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas." Seven people have edited this article in the last 24 hours but you continue to misrepresent what happens to suggest that I am the only person removing and adding material and you are simply "restoring" the status quo. Play fair or we will have to seek Arbcom assistance.Momento (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy

See philanthropy. Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, services, time and/or effort to support a socially beneficial cause, with a defined objective and with no financial or material reward to the donor. In a more general sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity intended to promote good or improve human quality of life. One who practices philanthropy may be called a philanthropist. Seems to me founding TPRF more than qualifies him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Rumiton, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't how Misplaced Pages works. We don't go through and decide which things are true based on our own assessments of whether they meet certain definitions. Instead we report what we find in reliable sources. See WP:OR and WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Known as...

This article's talk page already has 39 archives. Many of those include discussions of what the subject has been called. We also participated in lengthy mediation which included drafting the introduction. The various appelations of the subect are well-sourced and have been thoroughly discussed. It is disruptive when editors ignore all of that and just delete the mateial on a whim.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Claa68's reminder that this article should start with who Rawat is, not who he was. He is not known as Balyogeshwar or the LOTU. And he isn't a "spiritual leader" either. I'm going to ask for article protection if editors take the opportunity to insert 30 year old material as if it is happening now. Sylvie's edit seems the best so far.Momento (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It was Cla68 who added LOTU, so I don't know what you mean when you say you agree with him. We've discussed the other terms many times before. Have you forgtotten our previous discussions? It is standard practice in WP to list alternate names at the beginning of biographies.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Articles on probation
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles