Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 15 January 2015

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: 2 months

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.

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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	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 add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Prem Rawat (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cade Metz (2008-02-06). "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?". The Register.

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: 2 months

Subpages

• 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, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat

Archives of Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Lead first paragraph

The lead first paragraph is poorly constructed, in my opinion, so that it creates a non-neutral and pejorative tone immediately, as well as possibly being burdened with honorifics. I may be commenting on what has already been discussed. To create neutrality:

• Expansion of DLM in the first paragraph of a lead on Rawat is unnecessary and coatrack content. I realize this has been discussed. I believe with my cmt added to other comments there is consensus to remove the coatrack content.
• Honorifics don't belong in a lead.
• Too much focus on cult in the opening paragraph of the lead, One statement is enough to establish that some regard Rawat a cult leader. The rest should he removed and can be added to the body of the article dependent on weight
• Pejorative content on Rawat should not precede the content that explains Rawat. Its illogical to present criticism of the man before the reader knows anything about the man as happens in the first paragraph of the lead.

I think the first and second points can be taken care of easily with the past discussion on the coatrack content, and the RfC. I should clarify that its not up to me to decide the outcome of the RfC on honorifics just that the issue is in discussion.

An infobox discussion seems premature given the lead has not been stabilized.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

I suppose we can take this up again here on the active talk page where the last discussion on this topic was left unconcluded: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2. OK if everyone reads it there, or would it be best to copy that discussion back here (in order not to double what was already said)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing that "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" be removed from the lede, too? Rawat's current followers still call him Maharaji. How are those honorifics perjorative? They are terms in hindi that in no way are critical of him. "Maharaji" means "great king." The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru, when he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, as well as the huge publicity he achieved by the mainstream press during his first years in the west. The vast, and I mean vast majority of reliable sources, including books and articles by scholars of new religious movements, refer to Rawat a cult leader and by the honorific Guru Maharaj Ji. Additionally, something it not libel or perjorative if it's true. All of this material has been already meticulously sourced. Sylviecyn (talk)

(e.c.) Littleolive oil shouldn't split that part of the discussion of in a new section while there's still an RfC ongoing about the first sentence above, see #RfC on first sentence of the article. I don't want to run ahead of the closure of that discussion, but seems like there's going to be no change to the first sentence, nor the addition, nor the removal of anything ("Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" are well known a.k.a.'s in the older literature, there's virtually no mentionings of "Prem Rawat" in those sources that are still widely available in newspaper's websites, google books etc.; Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect, thus recognition-wise it should be mentioned too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

if somebody is in favour of NRMs, maybe because he or she is engaged in one or another themselves, TM for example, it makes sense to support another NRM, because they may then stick together and push POVs positive of their subjects. I don't know if it is true, but i saw exactly that with jossi and zappaz a long time ago, here. Surdas (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, speculation is maybe not what we need right now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

¿Some regard Prem Rawat a cult leader? That should be "regarded", in the seventies and perhaps eighties, nowadays probably mostly old ex-premies from that time.¿The only reason Prem Rawat has notability to warrant an article is because of his life as a boy guru? ¿Not the more than 50 events in different cities around the world every year, some of them in universities and institutions of international prestige, addressing millions, after he was a boy? ¿His current followers still call him Maharaji? I am a current follower and I have not seen nor heard the word Maharaji for decades. Most young premies don’t even know that word. All publications and all events use the name Prem Rawat since more or less the times of Elan Vital if I remember right, looong ago. --PremieLover (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's clarify:

• I did not suggest splitting off anything. I did suggest that RfC should continue with out splitting the discussion off to discuss info boxes.
• I did not suggest removing Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaj Ji". I did suggest and per MOS that honorifics don't belong in the lead. These are not honorifics.
• Let's not confuse editing a so called NRM article on Misplaced Pages with being in favour of NRMs and I have to admit I don't know that that means. Further, speculation as to why someone edits an article is just that, speculation, and doesn't really help anything along. i originally began editing this article because I saw an unpleasant antagonistic situation and wanted to help try to maintain a more neutral environment. I'm not saying I did or can do that, but I did and would like to continue trying.
• I do believe the first paragraph of the lead is non-neutral because of multiple issues as I outlined above.
• An RfC is a community wide discussion or should be. The thread I started here describing concerns with the first paragraph of the article can be dealt with by editors here first. These are two different kinds of discussion. If it is confusing to have both an RfC going on and this thread too, I suggest we abandon the thread until the RfC has been closed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC))
  • For clarity, Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar are honorifics, I suppose that's where the misunderstanding stemmed from. In the lead they're treated as a.k.a.'s, which they also are, and that's why it is best not to remove them there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget: The problem was not really Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji, because those were actually used as an equivalent for names over several years. Balyogeshwar was a child name and should me marked as such. The problem arose with the indistinctive and ostensible use of Perfect Master and, above all, Lord of the Universe. Perhaps we can settle that now. The Ambassador of Peace bit should be placed next to the cult bit, with an indication of the chronological gradient.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the original honorifics have become "also known as" names. Whether the names are in current usage may be important to note.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)_

I agree. There is a different significance between someone using several aliases parallel at the same time, and someone using different a.k.a.s in a meaningful chronological order. This should not be completely levelled over in the sentence, as it would be misleading.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Sylviecyn

Okay, maybe we can do this: Leave in "Maharaji" and "Guru Maharaji" and take out Balyogeshwar, which was not used much in the west as he got older. What the heck. I'm sick of fighting over this. So my proposal is to change the first sentence of the lede, as well as removing all and/or parts of two sentences that discuss his being described as a cult leader, which is covered in the beginning of the "Reception" section. And, the criticism of "intellectual content" and "lifestyle" bits are also covered in the body of the article under "Lifestyle." Maybe that will satisfy Oliveoil's suggestions. Let's make some progress.  :)

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. and Balyogeshwar Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge." He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and a charismatic religious sect. and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

It's a rough draft, meaning I'm trying to be flexible. In writing, my believe is that less is more. Please review and let's discuss. Thx Sylviecyn (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

see --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• This draft is Ok and I could support it. The DLM content edges on coatrack content so is what I would have removed, but its fine left in with the other changes. Rather than argue I'll be happy to go along with Sylviecyn's efforts... and thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

Sylviecyn's proposal sounds reasonable to me. Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji may formally be honorifics, but actually were used as names over many years. I guess many students have only learned much later of his civic name Prem Rawat. So I think it is justified to mention them in the summary.

I would like to modify the following sentence about the aprupt appearance of the hitherto unheard oi DLM in the West in a coherent way, so that it becomes clear that it had already climaxed in India, when Prem came to the West as a child, just to avoid creating a distorted image. Then the cult bit, followed by the ambassador of peace bit. Opinions/suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior discussion regarding third sentence of lede (and possible additional section on movements/organizations)

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

, which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. DLM has its separate article but the sources refer to both the titular leader of the organization, Prem Rawat, and DLM, the organization. Additionally, DLM was the originating organization in India (and then brought to the west) that was founded by Rawat's father, who Prem Rawat proclaims to have suceeded as the Satguru, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, upon the father's death. It's a short sentence and should remain, imo, because it informs the readers. Also, Francis, please don't make any edits to the article unless they've been discussed here and consensus has been reached. That's a long-standing practice on the Rawat articles. Thanks! P.S. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

All of what you say above is still in the lede, including what sources say more specifically about Rawat ("... has been called a cult leader ...")

It's about the summary in the lede.

While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

(...short explanation...)

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)

===Elan Vital===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

(...short explanation...)

===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===

(...description...)

So you see it's not about losing the content, but shortening the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As we seem to agree on Sylviecyn's proposal, is there any reason to delay making the edit?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? We didn't agree at all on Sylviecyn's proposal. As nobody seems to object to mine (after bringing it for the second time to this talk page), I propose to implement that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, the thread appears a little tattered. I mean Sylviecyn's proposal: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. and Balyogeshwar Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge." He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, and a charismatic religious sect. and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle. She, Little Olive and I agreed on that. Your proposal has been vaporized by the RfC, hasn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with that proposed edit, for the reasons explained in my older proposal (brought back to this current talk page above), and in part also for the recent RfC being closed on a "no change" for the first sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Wasn't it your older proposal that was rejected, including its reasons, and the RfC closed with that, not with "no change", as you twist it now. After that came Sylviecyn's proposal, with a rare and precious agreement by her (opponent), me (supporter) and LittleOlive (neutral). What is your agenda? That POV lede paragraph has been there for much too long, and you should not obstruct an overdue improvement, that has been achieved in painstaking collaboration.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the older proposal, as copied above received no further comments after I had answered Syliecyn's initial reserve, see above, which seems like "nobody objects" to the ammended proposal to me. At least up till now, and including Rainer P.'s last comment, nobody has given any *reason* why it wouldn't be a good idea.

That is the proposal "regarding third sentence of lede (and possible additional section on movements/organizations)" (as the title of this subsection has it).

Regarding first sentence of the lede: no change per recent RfC.

Regarding fourth sentence of the lede: for now I oppose any change to that sentence (and its references), and would only discuss it again once agreement on the third sentence has been reached. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'nobody objects' is just your perception of 'nobody can find it'. Anyway, as we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal, I feel we should go on.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "nobody can find it" — nonsense;

Re. "we finally have an agreeable version of that sentence with Sylviecyns proposal" — we haven't, for the third or fourth (or is it fifth?) time in this talk page section, see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm getting too old for such a high-handed communication style. It seems, that you're the only one opposing Sylviecyn's proposal, and you have a very round-about and wearing manner of arguing.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) Let me ask again: is there any *rationale* why my proposal above should not be implemented? Above I have given my rationale why it should be implemented. Is there anything wrong with that rationale? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of Sylviecyn or Rainer. Though I would mention "...was considered in the seventies (or "and eighties") as a... --PremieLover (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

would anybody answer Francis question about his rationale please? Otherwise i would oppose! Surdas (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Francis, please kindly repeat or point directly to your proposal, incl. *rationale*, I'm getting lost in this thread. Must be old age.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your signpost, Francis, but really, I am the only one who can't make sense out of it? Can somebody simply show me, what that proposal was? I feel like I'm being given the roundabout again.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of cutting up this discussion with older discussions (which is confusing and doesn't flow with the current discussions) I suggest we continue to discuss my proposal above. I don't believe it's against Wiki rules for an editor to change one's mind as I did. But, we have reached agreement and consensus, so I propose we come to a decision about the lede's first paragraph soon. My understanding of the Rfc is that they did not agree with Francis' proposal to change the lede's first sentence (the one I originally agreed with with all the honorifics), but I don't find anywhere in the Rfc where they said we should not edit the lede. Therefore, I invite Francis to make a counter proposal on mine, otherwise, at this point I think we have consensus to make the change soon. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no "agreement and consensus". My proposal is above (prior proposal, counterproposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All I can find is: I propose to remove: ", which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion" from the lede. The article is on the person, not the DLM organization (which has a separate article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)" ,

and I still agree. I also agree with Sylviecyn's proposal, deleting Balyogeshwar and Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle. These are not much in contradiction and it can be combined: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji and formerly as Guru Maharaj Ji. Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge.". He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). These could be the first three sentences, nice and short. I agree with Olive and Francis, that DLM should not be used as a coatrack for introducing the cult-word in such a pushy and apodictic manner. The criticism-sentence should be reviewed (e.g. footnote Nr. 9 (Stephen Hunt) doesn't support what is being said before) and moved to a place behind descriptive content.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3rd & 4th sentence options

Option 0 (keep as is)

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

Option 1 (Francis)

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM). Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

Option 2 (Sylviecyn)

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion.

Option 3 (Rainer P)

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM), which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion. Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

results in:

He came to early prominence leading the Divine Light Mission (DLM).

References

1. ^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
2. ^ Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
3. ^ Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
4. ^ Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.

Discussion

• Option 1 — remove the long unreferenced sentence part that is about one of the organizations, but not about the person. This is a biographical article, so shouldn't give details about perception of the organizations in the lede. There are currently two separate articles about the organizations (if these were conflated with the biography of the person the lede would be different, but they aren't, they are in separate articles, one of which has this "perception of DLM" sentence in the first paragraph of the lede, with a reference)

So should be removed from lede per unreferenced and per inappropriate for this article. It is also inappropriate in the lede of this article while DLM has been, over the complete period it has been named thus, not always and/or not completely under Rawat's remit, as has been established multiple times. So, saying something in general about an organization the subject of this biography is only partially responsible for, is misleading.

There isn't much difference between options 2 and 3 as far as I'm concerned, because if option 2 is chosen, eventually the inappropriate part discussing the perception of the movement needs to be removed (there really isn't much choice there: it is inappropriate in the lede of this article per Misplaced Pages's commitment to high standards).

Thus I would do (as I always said): Take this step by step (not trying to do too much at once); proceed now with what has been called "step 2" in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#step 2, or "option 1" above, and take it from there once that step has been taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying it out so clearly (option 4 is probably meant to be option 3). I could go along with option 1, but it needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.

Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I choose Option 1, agreeing with Francis' logic that the previous sentence isn't referenced, and because the article is about Rawat, not the organizations. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

i go with option 1 as well Surdas (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

New section on organizations

Above I wrote:

While the links to the spin-off articles aren't so clear in running text, I'd also do the following: add a new section under the teachings section somewhat in this vein:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

(...short explanation...)

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

(...short explanation, including which has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect and an alternative religion...)

===Elan Vital===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

(...short explanation...)

===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===

(...description...)

Can we explore that possibility further? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. We should be careful though, that the whole thing won't spacewise heel toward the amply sourced, but really obsolete DLM stuff of days gone by, at the expense of important modern developments. In that also stale items like the " Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" (Media-section) could be revised. A short naming and characterization of each org should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My stab at this:

==Organizations==

See also: Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

Rawat inherited the first organization he was associated with (Divine Light Mission) from his father. Moving away from the trappings of Indian culture and religion, he later established Elan Vital and Words of Peace International, independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles, and not bound to the traditions of India. The more recent organizations, like also The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) founded in 2001, add more focus to humanitarian efforts.

===Divine Light Mission===

Main article: Divine Light Mission

The Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad; DLM) was an organization founded in 1960 by guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj for his following in northern India. During the 1970s, the DLM gained prominence in the West under the leadership of his fourth and youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). Some scholars noted the influence of the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, but the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion. DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion.

===Elan Vital and Words of Peace International===

Main article: Elan Vital (organization)

DLM was disbanded when Prem Rawat renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, making his teachings independent of culture, beliefs and lifestyles. The DLM in the United States changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change. Elan Vital became the name shared by several organizations supporting the work of Rawat. Independent Elan Vital organizations in several countries engaged in raising funds, organising speaking engagements by Rawat and in some cases broadcast his public addresses. Elan Vital no longer connected to its originally Hindu or Sikh religious background. Elan Vital, Inc. in the U.S. is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It has been labelled a "church" in reference to its tax status. Its 2005 articles of incorporation described its purpose as performing "religious, charitable and educational activities". The Elan Vital website states that Elan Vital ceased operations in 2010, and has been succeeded by new entities such as Words of Peace International, Inc.

===The Prem Rawat Foundation and others===

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

The Peace Education Programme (PEP), founded by TPRF, is a media-based educational programme that helps participants explore the possibility of personal peace, and to discover personal resources — tools for living such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope. The programme, not only successful in some educational institutions, had by 2012 also been adopted by 28 prisons in 10 countries including the United States, South Africa, India, Spain, Ireland and Australia. The voluntary based programme takes inmates onto a unique route of rehabilitation involving self-discovery, and hopes of a fulfilled life, within or without the prison walls.

Re. Rainer's comments:

• As you can see this allows to tell something more about the recent developments, the two older organizations already have their separate article (I borrowed from the intros of these articles for their respective descriptions above).
• (for the Misplaced Pages technique used to write this section, see Misplaced Pages:Summary style — if you're interested in such technicalities)
• Media section: not the topic of this talk page subsection

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. van Driel & Richardson (1988)
2. "Miami's startled elite wish the guru, in short, a pleasant stay", By Barry Bearak, Knight-Ridder Service, 30 July 1977. INDEPENDENT PRESS TELEGRAM (Long Beach, CA) A-11 "ACCORDING to Anctil and mission president Bill Patterson, they represent a church rather than a religion."
3. Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American Religions 7th edition. Thomson (2003) p.2328 ISBN 0-7876-6384-0
   "In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization to support his future role as teacher." Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated and to make his presentation acceptable to all the various cultural settings in which followers live. He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles, and regularly addresses audiences in places as culturally diverse as India, Japan, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Slovenia, Mauritius and Venezuela, as well as North America, Europe and the South Pacific.
4. Colorado Secretary of State, Business Center.
5. GuideStar – American Express Search – ELAN VITAL INC
6. Elan Vital website
7. "About Prem Rawat" at the website of The Prem Rawat Foundation
8. "Charity report". BBB Wise Giving Alliance. Retrieved March 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
9. Shanti Ayadurai. "Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison" in The Malaysian Times (29 October 2012)

My straightaway impression is (without looking at all the sources thoroughly, that can wait), your proposal is pleasantly informative and neutral. Where would you place it in the article? Perhaps in front of the Reception-section?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Above I said (second line under subsection title) "...new section under the teachings section", which is indeed the same as "...in front of the Reception-section" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have overlooked that. So we agree on that, too.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to mention the 'Food for People' program in the TPRF-paragraph, along with the Peace Education Program, as these two seem to constitute the organisation's crown jewels. There are presently three facilities, namely in India, Nepal and Ghana. Here are secondary sources I have found (of course there are a lot of more detailed primary sources, but I'm not sure if we can use them): http://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-prem-rawat-foundation-launches-food-people-dhading (Nepal and India) and http://www.goodnesstv.org/en/ (Ghana)--Rainer P. (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that the sources for these proposed changes/additions are from self-published and primary sources only. That makes this proposal original research, imo. The Malaysian Times piece reads like a standard Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) press release with advertisements for Rawat and TPRF. The same goes for the "Relief Web" piece. The link to "Goodness TV" brings you to the main page with nothing about Rawat on it. A search of Prem Rawat on "Goodness TV" gives a list of TPRF-produced videos that are described in French. Where are the secondary sources for introducing these newer organizations and programs? I can't agree with creating a new section titled "Organizations" and expanding on TPRF's programs without secondary sources. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In WP:Primary sources it says: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. So in my understanding these sources, even if they are primary, do allow us to state that there are these organisations in a descriptive way, but no interpretations or judgements. It is not OR either, as any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge can confirm. So, as far as Francis's proposal is strictly descriptive, it is sufficiently covered by these sources. In case of doubt WP:RS-Noticeboard should be consulted.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Rainer P.'s quote of the WP:PRIMARY policy, such content would also be covered by the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy. Further, also the WP:BALASPS policy mandates such content.

Further, from the nine sources given for this proposed addition about half are neither primary nor self-published, so Sylviecyn's "the sources for these proposed changes/additions are from self-published and primary sources only" is factually incorrect.

So,

• @Sylviecyn: I'd invite you to revisit your position on this;
• @Rainer P.: I'd invite you to find stronger sources (in order to make a stronger argument for this section), and/or leave out/rewrite/update some of its content if it would be unbalanced (the better a good balance can be achieved in the proposal, the more chance it will find broader approval)

& everyone (also those who haven't contributed/commented on this) to do likewise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, what do you mean: unbalanced? Is there actually an opposing view, that these organizations do not really exist? I think the point is strong enough, but I'll keep looking anyway.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant "balanced" in the meaning of the last policy section I linked to above, WP:BALASPS, or "Balancing aspects" as that policy section is named. I know, when I provide a policy link on this talk page it is somewhat unwieldy to expect others to actually click that link when it is unclear what concept I'm referring to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how mentioning PEP and FFP are "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article subject" in this article, that carries so much irrelevant info. So, here are some more sources for the PEP, two of which wre obviously independent.

http://utsa.edu/today/2012/01/premrawat.html

http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/opening-the-doors-of.../

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb562810.htm--Rainer P. (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Balancing fourth sentence of the intro

Copying part of a conversation above:

(The fourth sentence of the intro) needs to be directly followed by a short statement that balances the pejorative double 'cult'-spell, which neglects the later developments and is therefore POV, if not balanced. Like: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later often been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace."--Rainer P. (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "option 4 is probably meant to be option 3" → corrected.

Don't propose article text without proper references, please. I mean, you want it in, you provide the properly formatted references, otherwise it's not really worth considering if in the end it can't be referenced. For instance "often" in your proposal: where does that come from? Seems like an interpretation of primary sources, so not allowable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a summary of what is said in the article, where everything is properly sourced alright. Otherwise you could say about the text before, 'early' is not sourced, nor is 'prominence'. I think, summarizing works that way, doesn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"early prominence" is allowed, "often" is not (in the respective contexts). Either you believe me, either I refer you to the policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, skip 'often'. How about 'also'?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that my agreement with the previous sentence is provisional, depending on a balancing amendment.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I may assume consensus over "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later also been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace." and make the edit.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. There's no "double 'cult'-spell" preceding it any more, unreferenced, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the kind of conditions you're throwing in "I'll pretend I don't like something else if I can't force this one" is a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle. are very biased (and awkward) statements, unless balanced with an equally sourced complementary view, as actually is the case in the article, don't you agree? Maybe you can come up with a better suggestion than mine, but we cannot just leave it like this, as it does not represent the more balanced article content. The preceding sentences do not pertain to Rawat's reception and do therefore not provide somehow balance in advance.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Second sentence of lede

Retrieving something from the archive regarding the second sentence of the lede:

How about replacing

Rawat teaches a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge".

by

Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.

References

1. ^ Geaves, Ron (6 May 2004). "Elan Vital". In Christopher Hugh Partridge (ed.). New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. Oxford University Press. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-19-522042-1. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
2. Shanti Ayadurai. "Opening The Doors Of Peace In Prison" in The Malaysian Times (29 October 2012)

(...)

I like this proposal: Rawat's teachings include a meditation practice he calls "Knowledge", and peace education based on the discovery of personal resources such as inner strength, choice, appreciation and hope.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

→ Something to proceed with? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it, too. That way there is an informational statement before criticism, the way it should be.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, went ahead with this one. Can I go ahead with the proposal in #New section on organizations too? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Brand Award in infobox?

See #RfC on first sentence of the article. What are the views on including the Brand Award in the infobox? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is enough to mention that he has been awarded with a multifarious variety of civic accolades, not highlighting a single one (except it some day were the Peace Noble Prize ...). No refs necessary, they are given in the article. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Analyzing what WP:primary sources says, we can even source it with http://www.premrawat.com/awards/.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the problem. In my view this award is not significant enough for the infobox, so I definitely would like more input on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess the sheer number of various accolades is notable. I suggest a sentence like: He has received numerous civic accolades (please correct style, if necessary), and source it like above?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't write such sentences in the infobox list of specific topics. Either the accolades are named, or not included (in the infobox, article content is a different matter). Really, need more input from other editors on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not satisfactory. What's the use of an infobox, if it can't really reflect the facts? I see that listing all awards might exceed the infobox format, but omitting them does not seem to be a good solution. Why not summarize and insert a link to the relevant text passages?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But I agree that the Brand Award may not be significant enough to deserve an isolated mention in the infobox.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan Outlook interview

I'ld like to make an addition at the foot of "Media"- section: "On the subject of criticism, Rawat made the following comments on a Taiwan News channel: "“So far I’m concerned, my focus in life is not to appease critics, but is to bring the message of peace to people. When you’ve been doing what I have been doing for 5 decades plus, yes you’re gonna get critics. People said, “He’s going to fade away.” Well, how about fifty-two years. And I’m still doing strong, because it is about my conviction. And my conviction is “peace is possible”. And I will do everything that I must do, because it’s important to me that people find that peace in their life. ”, and source it here, from 21:00 on. Inquiry at RS-noticeboard says it's o.k. (see: WP:RS, 'Taiwan Outlook')--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

His '73 riposte to criticism was much more remarkable, and recorded in third-party reliable sources:

His followers, when they have reacted to such criticism, have tended to point to issues of perception while Rawat himself has attributed it to ability to give peace and his mistrust of the press.

But wait... that was removed by Rainer P.

If Rawat only riposts to criticism in a way that is picked up in reliable sources every four decades, I don't think we need more than one mentioning in the article, and I'd go for the one in the secondary source then, not the one in the primary source.

In general the subject of the article seems to devote precious little time to riposting to criticism, per WP:BALASPS we shouldn't give it excess weight in the article.

Note, Prem Rawat#Lifestyle currently contains the Rawat quote with which he replied to criticism in '73.

BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 , the original post read:

Reactions of his followers to such points of criticism, if any, tend to point to perception issues, while Rawat asserted his ability to give peace and his mistrust of the press.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Geaves (2006a), pp. 44-62.
2. ^ "The Guru Who Minds His Mother", MALCOLM N. CARTER. Associated Press THE STARS AND STRIPES, 4 November 1973 Page A6
3. ^ Foss & Larkin (1978)
4. ^ San Francisco Examiner, 7/21/73, as quoted in "What's Behind the 15-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji?" Gail Winder and Carol Horowitz, The Realist 12/73
5. ^ Der Spiegel - 8 October 1973

Please explain, why should we prefer a >40 year old source, and an incoherent statement, especially, when it has rightfully been removed? And, in this case, when we have a chance to quote a primary source, where it suits the question a lot better for authenticity and intellegibility, and is approved by the RS-noticeboard? And what makes you think Rawat's response to criticism has "excess weight" in this article, when it has not been adressed at all in a coherent way, while there is a lot of criticism? The dusty "reception/media"-section could indeed use some update information, don't you agree?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please follow Misplaced Pages:Indentation in talk page discussions.

Please explain your use of "incoherent". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage. But it specifically means unintelligible due to a lack of cohesion, or sticking together. An incoherent argument may sound something like this. "I deserve to go to the dance because it is the second Tuesday of the month and my feet are a size ten." The reasons do not follow each other logically and to not even relate. It's an incoherent mess." (from: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/incoherent). E.g. to my mind it's incoherent not to keep a specific personal level of indentation in an ongoing discussion, as it makes it easier to identify who is posting. But I'll of course do my best for the quality of this article, so it won't get stuck in technical formalities.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"BTW, the deformation of the above into unintelligibility happened in July 2013 " is what I posted above: "unintelligibility" not caused by incoherence, but by bad syntax. I never said I would go back to the bad syntax that led to this clarification request. As I said the actual Rawat quote (not the unintelligible summary of it) is still in the article (one time, no unintelligibility or incoherence involved) in Prem Rawat#Lifestyle, and as I said I would keep it in the article one time, so your question "why should we prefer ... an incoherent statement ...?" is without object, nobody suggests anything like that.

Regarding the rest of your previous questions: generally in Misplaced Pages secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), the rest of my reasons is WP:BALASPS. Note that I rewrote that policy section a few months ago in part for something that happened in connection to the Rawat article, in case Rainer P. apparently misunderstanding WP:BALASPS, see Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section. So I invite you to please revisit that policy section (and the talk page section on why it changed), because I see the same type of misunderstanding reappearing in your questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Francis, so complicated to say (or to obscure) a simple thing? As soon as I find the time and the mood to dig through your statement, I probably will. I am convinced though, you could simply say what you mean, without having me spend hours to find out if there is a point to it at all, or whether you just don't like it. I liked that RfC thing you kicked off recently, maybe we could shorten the process by applying that again for this matter. Like: Is it okay to use this quote ..., and so on. Maybe we can find agreement over the sentence in question.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

RainerP., is there a date on that video? I don't see a problem with your proposal, but it would be better if it had a date stamp on it. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a date on the video itself, but there is a parallel link to the program: http://web.pts.org.tw/macroview/taiwan_outlook/index.php?id=405 , that says June 13, 2014, 12:00 h.

Sylviecyn, do you think it is necessary to provide an additional footnote only for the exact date?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

TV-interviews

I would like to add a sentence to the 'Media'-section, like: In the 21st century, Rawat gave some extensive TV-interviews, and use a primary source like This , which is admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos'). One or the other interview can also be referenced to a secondary source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYGhnChLT0) and (http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12), perhaps more.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"extensive" is an interpretative qualifier, not allowed per WP:PRIMARY. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, the sentence you have asked permission for at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#YouTube-videos is: 'He gave some extensive interviews to TV-channels', significantly different from what is proposed here.

Further, you only *proposed* it there, currently without anyone commenting, so the contention "admissible for that statement, according to WP:RS noticeboard ('YouTube-videos')" is insincere to put it mildly, but the word should be "misleading". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss the exact wording. I don't care about the 'extensive'. And I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Let's be constructive. Pick a wording!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion: wouldn't it be a good idea to add such interviews that have been publicly broadcast, and have passed WP:RSN as being an acceptable primary source, to Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations?

As for what it could mean for the content of the Rawat article: I'd take the content of the interviews as a whole, and see what gets most attention: for the #Taiwan Outlook interview above most of it is Rawat telling about his current projects afaics. Maybe the Rawat article can benefit from an update on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think, it's a good idea, Francis, to mention the interviews in the Bibliography. For the article, to keep it short and readable, I think it is enough to generally mention that he gave those interviews, as a fact that can go into the deficient 'media'-section, in combination with links to the interviews, so the reader can look for himself, if they are interested. To evaluate them contentwise seems an interesting and sophisticated task, but it is not necessary for characterizing his relation to public media. Regardless we can pick parts of the interviews for sourcing other contexts, like my suggestion concerning his attitude toward criticism, as above, and then use verbatim quotes. But for giving the 'media'-section a quick update, a short mention with references should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

This edit was a WP:BOLD attempt to correct several problems in the lede, some of which were highlighted during the recently closed RFC (honorifics, describing criticism before describing notability, etc.), and other issues related to simplifying a somewhat convoluted English grammar, for readability. The edit was reverted, so I leave it to you to address these issues on your own. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cwobeel! Thank you for your contribution, and please feel welcome to this discussion, that could really use some fresh blood.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'll pass. It is clear that there is a measure of WP:OWN here, and the discussions are over-the-top confusing and long winded, with very little progress to show for. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not completely related to this, but still: some time ago I expanded auto-archive time lapse from 30 to 100 days (as many talk page sections were archived, then brought back for further discussion, resulting in messy archive pages when the sections were re-archived). 100 days was probably too long, too many finished discussions linger on here, leading unsurprisingly to the remark this page is getting "confusing". So now I put the time lapse to 60 days, but would agree to 45 days too. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly a step toward sanity. I have on several occasions tried and reverted the bot's archiving, but that was never sustainable. Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

More Lede...

This paragraph:

In November 1973 the Millennium '73 festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, centered on Rawat's addresses. Although media attention was peaking, attendance to the festival was much lower than the expected 100,000. Within half a year — Rawat had turned sixteen, married, and had severed ties with his mother and eldest brother — he had gained an active control of the DLM (by now established in 55 countries), except its Indian severed stem. From the early 80s he discarded ostensible references to religion. Ashrams were closed and the part of DLM he controlled was replaced by Elan Vital.

Is not very good grammatically, it's not particularly well constructed, and as a paragraph, it's not really a cohesive thought. I suggest the following, keeping all the same information, only improving the readability:

In November 1973 the festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and while this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than predicted. Following this there were many rapid changes for Rawat, he turned 16, became , got married, and along the way, severed ties with the original Indian arm of the DLM, along with his mother and eldest brother as well. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). Beginning in the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion, closed the ashrams, and the name of the DLM was replaced with .

If you don't like that, I'm ok with that too :)

Ciao again! (back next year? lol)
- Maelefique 15:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maelefique! Where have you been? I think your suggestion is an improvement, and I only offer minor changes:

In November 1973 the festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and although this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than expected. Immediately following this came many changes for Rawat; he turned 16, became and got married. He also severed his ties to his mother and eldest brother, and with the original Indian DLM organization. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). In the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion in his speeches and closed the ashrams. The name of the DLM was changed to .--Rainer P. (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, life pulls at me from many directions, I have a new company that takes up far too much of my time these days... I think some of your changes are good, but the "Immediately" that you added makes it seem like those things took place within weeks or something, and they didn't, so I don't like that addition as much. I would think that severing ties with the Indiam arm of the DLM was more important than severing ties with his brother and mother, so it would come first in the sentence, but you could easily argue the opposite as well, so I can live with that change, although I would take out the word "his", they're just "ties", they bind to both ends, you can't sever only one end of a tie. Although now that I've said that in my head 50 times, I like it all less, lol, how about "he cut his links to...blah blah blah" (and yes, I realize, I left "his" in there, doesn't seem to sound as odd, it should, but it doesn't :) ). -- Maelefique 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Right; let's spare a few words, makes it sound more encyclopedic, too: In November 1973 the festival was held in the Houston Astrodome, and although this was near the height of Rawat's media fame, attendance was far lower than expected. Following this came many changes for Rawat; he turned 16, became and got married. He cut ties to his mother and eldest brother, and with the original Indian DLM organization. He retained control of the DLM everywhere else (at this point it was established in 55 countries). In the early 80's he began to discard direct references to religion in his speeches and closed the ashrams. The name of the DLM was changed to .--Rainer P. (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I like it. :) -- Maelefique 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Ambassador for/of Peace?

Francis, I think it should be of Peace, as that seems to be the prevalent version.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking RfC

Francis, I think that the lede does not reflect the article content in an NPOV way, as it should. Especially that cult-sentence is a major flaw, when it is not balanced by complementary statements. As we can't seem to reach an agreement over this, I would accept the result of an RfC. Maybe we can find an agreement over the question we should submit to the RfC. What do you think/suggest? What is others' opinion on this?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Accelerating the process

Waiting for all-out agreement has obviously put this article into a stall. What can I do for accelerating the process of improving this BLP, while the subject is still alive? RfC? Placing an NPOV-tag? Complain at the Village Pump? Any ideas out there?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view, the problem is not with the lede, it's with the article. You may be correct when you say that the "cult" sentence isn't reflected adequately in the article, but that's the problem, not the lede, and I'm sure you know why there isn't more in the article already about the DLM reaching cult status. -- Maelefique 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the 'cult'-bit, as for some DLM-phenomena in fact there may be no alternative word, and the public stamping has been quite sustainable in many minds who witnessed that time. So it undoubtably has its legitimacy in the article as well as in the lede, as a historical fact. Then again, Rawat has not been leader of the DLM for very long, and it is his bio. There is a seperate article on DLM. To not balance the lede-info with later and recent developments, when Rawat had gained predominant recognition, which make up a lot of the article's actuality and which are mentioned and sourced in the article body, is definitely POV and has been recognized as such also by neutral editors. I have made a proposal above, for discussion, and it has not really been discussed: "After a process of abandoning the religious trappings of his provenance, he has later also been publicly referred to as Ambassador of Peace.", which from my point of view is still a rather conservative approach. Please remember, the majority of readers may not get past the lede section, so it is of high importance to have it represent the whole article, which is meant to be a biography, and not concentrate on however noisy inceptive throes. This is my concern, and the reason why I can't just let it alone.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

A related comment by Jimbo on his talk page: diff --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you would stay with the topic. My complaint pertains to an essential formal discrepancy between article and lede. I have no problem with Wales's politics, nor with majorities and minorities. I don't really find a relevant relation between your cite and our objective here, please explain what you mean straight out.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A simple question

Why does this article cite Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes for the assertion that Rawat is a 'cult leader'. Are these the only sources available, the best ones we have, or just thrown in for comedy value? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the lede:

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

References

1. Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
2. Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
3. Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
4. Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.

1. as you can see, four references, not two
2. More journalistic references at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of
3. As for the "book" references Larson and Rhodes are the most direct, meaning "cult leader" in one expression: there are quite some other sources speaking about the organization(s) and/or movement being perceived as a cult and/or Rawat being their explicit and/or de facto leader (which is an area of contention too), but Larson and Rhodes can be quoted without needing to bring together different places in the same or similar sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press