Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 27

message: You're welcome to edit but not this way.Momento 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting anon edit 

message: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have neutral sources for the assertions behind the statements you have added to the article? If so, please insert them into the refs section. If you need help with this, just ask. If not, I must ask you to restore it to its previous form. Thank you. Rumiton 09:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your username with shift and 4 tildes, so we can see who you are. Thank you. What is your source for "1.4 million people call him 'Guru Maharaji'"? Rumiton 11:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that exactly 1.4 million of them call him Guru Maharaji? What do the other 1.6 million call him? I can only repeat that you need to produce neutral sources for statements like this. And even if this is true and properly sourced, this is the English Wikipedia, and what he is called in India may not be considered relevant in a short biography like this one. Rumiton 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution 

message: :Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.
:In June 1971 Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the focus of substantial media attention. Tens of thousands were attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat then relocated to the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide.
:When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and married one of his American students, causing a permanent rift with his mother. From this point Rawat's teachings became more universal, and less Indian. In the early 1980s he dropped the title "Guru" and abandoned the Indian traditions from which the techniques originated.
:In 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to promote his message and contribute to global humanitarian efforts. His message is now available throughout the world via print, TV, cable and satellite.
Momento (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Rumiton (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the above? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Good improvements, let's go with it.Momento (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do! Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Aesthetically I agree with you, but my understanding is that footnotes should apply to the first mention of a subject. Let's leave it as you suggest and see if any other editor complains. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Rawat's main claim to fame is being a guru. His second claim to fame is becoming a guru at 8. His third claim to fame is coming to the west at 13. His fourth claim to fame is that he attracted so many followers. DLM is irrelevant to Rawat's fame, in fact it is the opposite. DLM is only notable because of him. He could have called it Elan Vital and eventually he did.Momento (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I admit that there is some truth in what you say, but the vehicle for his fame is the DLM organization and as such is important enought to be mentioned in the lead. Andries (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some truth? It's all truth! Rawat attracted tens of thousands of students because of who he was, what he said and what he taught. DLM was simply a convenience, a name given to an organization that sprung up around him to serve his needs. It's like saying Jesus was famous because of Christianity or Elvis was famous because of Gracelands.Momento (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rawat doesn't have any fame currently; he was famous in the 70s due to the large amount of negative press he received in the 70s.  In the U.S., nobody but premies and ex-premies know who he is in terms of name recognition.  Divine Light Mission was started by his father in India, and there's an entire stub article about it.  Elan Vital is the renamed DLM, don't forget.  Rawat was the legal "Chief Minister" of DLM until around 1976.  Not mentioning DLM, the organization that supported him and organized all of his events, managed his work, ashrams, published his satsangs, movies, etc., in the 70s and early 80s, is to ignore the first fruitful (in terms of money and followers) ten years of Rawat's life here in the west.  A biography is supposed to be about a person's entire life.  DLM must be mentioned in the lead.  Sylviecyn (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki isn't about fame, it's about notability. This article covers 50 years of Rawat's life during which numerous organizations around the world, named and unnamed, legal and casual have supported his work. The three major ones are DLM, Elan Vital and TPRF, all are named in the article and readers can find out more about them. Momento (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Rawat was the legal "Chief Minister" of DLM until around 1976." Sylviecyn, do you have a source for this? I ask because, by my understanding of US law, until at least 1974 he couldn't be a legal anything; he was a child. Apart from that, I think the current lead is pretty good, introduces the subject as leads are supposed to. The organisational stuff that follows is also a pretty good treatment, I feel, though I would very much like to see sources who have looked at the last 25 years. (I may have raised this point before.) Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a "Wiki" source but Michael Dettmers, who formerly managed the financial affairs of DLM and Prem Rawat, has testified that Rawat's position of "Chief Minister" of DLM had to be relinquished due to the co-mingling of funds for his personal use and the use of the mission around 1976.  This was in response to an IRS audit of DLM around that time.  This was particularly troubling to legal advisors of DLM because of Rawat's lifestyle, vis a vis, his Malibu mansion and fleet of luxury cars at the time.  I know of no IRS code that states a minor cannot be legally named the Chief Minister of a non-profit, IRS-designated church, which is what DLM/Elan Vital has always been.  That restriction surely would be considered some kind of religious discrimination in my country.  And it hasn't been six months since I posted on this page.  My computer crashed in the beginning of Sept., but I was also quite ill for a couple of months, so I didn't get back up and running until mid-November.  If the issues I raised are considered "raising hell," then Jossi must have a very dull life.  But, his pat answer to any suggestions not made by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji is usually "that has already been resolved," when in fact, that's not true.  There is a November 30, 2007 article out in the Evening Standard in England about Prem Rawat and Lord Attenborough, if you're looking for new material to add.  Sylviecyn 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sylvie, that last was a bit cheeky. The Evening Standard is a famous, though small, London tabloid, and about as far from a reputable source as you could get. Sorry you were ill. Hope you are up and about now. For Jossi, English is about his third or fourth language, so his "raising hell" wasn't quite right. "Raising hackles" I think would be the best description of your edit. But regarding PR's alleged "Chief Minister" status prior to 1974, it cannot be. A minor cannot be held legally responsible for his/her actions, as any minister must be. Rumiton 13:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know how do you have so much patience... These arguments have been made already and were dismissed by valid counterarguments. Dropping in once every six months to raise hell, is not appreciates and indeed and disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems is that you used subjective arguments that will not easily convince others, instead of giving source based arguments, so do not be surprized that these and orther arguments will re-surface from time to time. To use a more objective argument, how many scholarly sources did not mention the DLM when compared to the ones that did? I would be surprized if you could find even one single scholarly source that does not mention the DLM. So clearly from source-based objective arguments, the DLM should go into the summary/lead section again. Andries 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Verily, it is said: Beware the wrath of a patient man. Perhaps this will be my next phase, Rumiton the Wrathful. (I have been working on a Christian group article. It has brought out the biblical in me.) Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede 

message: Having revisited the LOTU movie I'm thinking that it only needs to be mentioned briefly rather than include the Rennie Davis/Abbie Hoffman info. Momento (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the entire pre-1980 period is worth about two and a half sentences, but we are stuck with the old problem. Lack of neutral sources for the truly relevant and interesting times since. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, could you explain your reasoning for this opinion regarding the pre-1980 period?  It is the period when there was the fastest (only?) growth in followers outside India (measured by attendance at Rawat's speaking events), and almost all his current followers discovered him during that period.  The vast majority of press articles date from that period, as do most scholarly articles.  I would argue it is the period that deserves the most emphasis.  --John Brauns (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is partly subjective. I care about Knowledge. I see that he has now produced the Keys, which I find to be a magnificent, wise and humorous introduction to Knowledge, and the result of hundreds of hours of public speaking and editing. To do that he had to chisel away centuries of accreted Indian mumbo-jumbo. Less subjectively, nearly every day in my work I meet someone who watches him on Brisbane TV, where Words of Peace shows every afternoon. They invariably smile when they see the sticker on my car. Many seem unaware of Knowledge, which he rarely mentions; they just find him inspiring and fun to watch. Less subjective still, I see the effect TPRF is having on a local indigenous community, inspired personally by him. I used to work there, and like most people had given up on any chance for improvement. The alcohol, violence, drugs, delinquency, malnutrition and abuse seemed unstoppable. Now, after about a year of providing free nutritious breakfasts to kids, there is hope. Not perfection, just hope, which there was not before. The kids are getting to school and can pay attention in class and learn. I watched as a group of the kids presented Prem Rawat with some hand-made spears and dance masks, saw the joy and fun on their faces. By comparison, everything that happened in the 70s was a kindergarten. Does this explain my opinion? Rumiton (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have explained your opinion very clearly, but sadly for you and for me, this article isn't about our opinions.  Only reliable sources by Wikipedia standards can be used, and the majority of those reliable sources concentrate on the period pre-80s.  Since then Rawat has not been of sufficient interest to religious scholars, sociologists, reputable newspapers, or other reputable writers, so regardless of your opinion that his work now is more interesting than the 70s, until writers of reputable sources agree with you this article should reflect the sources.  Please let me know if you agree. --John Brauns (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that sources "concentrate" on the pre 80s, it is that they were written in the pre 80s when Rawat was still a "young" phenomenon. That is the cause of the interest. Have a look at the Shirley Temple article. The vast majority of the public know of ST as a child star from 1933 to 1949. And that section of her life get the largest coverage but is less than a quarter of the article. An encyclopedia article on a person, who may be famous for only one thing, is still obliged to cover a person's whole life.Momento (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the article should cover his whole life, so two and a half sentences on the period that brought him the most fame, studies, followers, etc. is clearly insufficient.  I'm not saying his later life should have less coverage, just arguing balance.  How can you objectively disagree? --John Brauns (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't manage to upload that new image. Would you please? Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Image is up. LOTU reduced.Momento (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTU 

message: *
Thought y'all would be interested in this citation for some more recent information on the activities of the subject of this article and his adherents.  Cheers, Cirt 07:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God for Wiki rules.Momento 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Gulf Times'' 

message: There is some material in the body of the article that I think would be better moved to Teaching article. It represents scholars opinion about his teachings rather than the facts that make up the rest of the article.Momento (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the para that starts "Rawat continued to teach the techniques..."? I can't see anything controversial about shifting it, why don't you go ahead and we'll see how it reads? Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the above sentence is OK. But apart from  Rawat talked about "Knowledge and inner peace" in the "Childhood" section, the only description of his teachings are the following - "Even though Rawat appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts, it did not prevent his followers from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age. Despite publicly denying any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord" and "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, by 1976 the vast majority of students viewed Rawat primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration.[34] His appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs". These two sections represents a snapshot of 2 or 3 years of Rawat's teachings in 73 and 75/76 but where are the all other sentences that cover his teachings from 1966 to 2007? We're illustrating changing points in Rawat's life telling bits about his teachings that are not representative. It should all be in the teachings article were we describe the teachings in greater scope and the above pieces can be seen in context.Momento (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are three sources omitted that state that Rawat claimed to be an incarnation of God (kranenborg, Melton, and Hummel)? This article is totally non-NPOV and violates policies. Andries (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there are dozens of quotes from scholars and Rawat saying he isn't. And this article is about Rawat, not his teachings. If you care to go to the Teachings article, you will find - "Sants believe that the Satguru or Perfect Master is an embodiment of God on earth and a fitting object of worship and veneration".Momento (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you missed the point. I'm not saying that the 70's are unrepresentative, I'm saying that the four or five paragraphs that mention Rawat's teaching are unrepresentative of his teachings. Since there is an article devoted to Rawat's teaching, they  should be there, not in this article which is about Rawat.Momento (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Pat, leaving aside your indignant polemics, surely you are not saying the article gives undue weight to the post-1980 period? Line by line I just worked out that about 85% of the article deals with the seventies, which is just one decade out of the four that he has been active. That is because, within the constraints of WP:BLP, we faithfully report what sources say, and sources have shown themselves to be more interested in spiritual groups and religions than they are in the less classifiable but, to many of us, far more interesting times since. Rumiton (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC
I'm glad you recognise that what you consider 'interesting times since' are of relatively little interest to sources.  You have some contempt for 'worldly' sources for not  being interested in same things as you? As a premie you'd probably think that non-premie sources are only interested in the wrong things.   I should say that both in the article and Momento's riposte, it is to me still not clear enough which parts of the' teachings' paragraph come from the sources. To me it seems cobbled together in a contrived way. Forgive me for saying but, all you seem to be doing here is rearranging information over and over. I suppose you can't omit the stuff you don't like (since you too are stuck with Wiki rules) so you just shuffle it all around endlessly - rearranging this article as if somehow you'll get it right and the picture will one day suddenly match your  view. Like trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear.  Aren't you getting tired of this? Especially knowing that when you eventually depart it'll all change again! My take is that, like all 'reformed' cults, this one has a more innocent youth/past where it's practices and beliefs were more honestly proclaimed and on display,  and that attracted interest and came back to haunt them ever since. Now Rawat and his followers (like Scientologists) have learned to be quiet about their 'wackier' beliefs, but that revealing past is really inseparable and fundamental to their story. It's like old pop stars - nobody wants to hear their new stuff - just their old hits! PatW (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Judging by our past efforts at communication, this is probably going to be another futile attempt, and one that shouldn't be taking place here anyway, but see my editing above. The reason that Prem Rawat doesn't get officially noticed these days is that all scholars have areas of specialisation, and the grants they receive from universities etc for research are based on those specialised areas. The scholars quoted in the 70s section (which is pretty much the whole article as it now stands) guys like Chryssides, Hunt and Barret, are religious or social scholars, whose wages were paid by various institutes while they produced analyses of religious or social phenomena. So they mostly looked at Prem Rawat's work as another example of the way eastern religious ideas were impacting on western society in the 70s. It was interesting to anyone who was fascinated or concerned by what seemed to be the rise of eastern inwardness and anti-materialism in the external and material western culture. That is not happening now. Prem Rawat has concentrated entirely on promulgating a singular inner experience, something that only some will find appealing. He is not giving any ideas about life or death, or instructions regarding lifestyle, and there is no group to join. People learn the method of turning within if they are interested, and then stay in touch with him for inspiration to continue if they like it. To the religiously minded and to sociologists, this is a non-event. And the work he is doing with TPRF, which he describes as contributing to peoples' dignity, is so far, too small in the whole gamut of charities and NGOs to rate an investigation. Personally, I like what is happening, and how it is happening, and I don't have a problem with any of this. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page not a discussion forum: Please take these fascinating conversations off-wiki, or to your talk pages. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Pat. And a large, red raspberry to Jossi. Brrrrttt! (Even if you ARE right.) Rumiton (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings 

message: I'm not offering an opinion, except to say that it should be considered within the bounds of WP:SELFPUB. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site, Maharaji.org, still exists, but Rawat has removed all biographical information from it.  This was clearly an active decision by Rawat, and the page in question cannot be found by any casual browsing.  Given this, there was no need for Rawat to ask the Wayback Machine to remove the page.  If Rawat's followers who edit this article had not somehow retained the full URL, then the page and the information on it would never have been found.  --John Brauns (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? The wayback machine material is there, and was not removed for reasons neither you and I can speculate about as it is irrelevant. You wanted an RfC, the RfC was made, and we got responses: what else do you want? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think his rationale for removing the content is clear. Furthermore, he wouldn't need to know specifically about the wayback machine to safeguard his privacy. robots.txt is a very common method for keeping information from webcrawlers. Personal sites have always used it. I think this is indeed analogous to an out-of-print pamphlet—unless the author takes further positive steps. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not raise this RfC, and it is not the RfC I would have raised.  As I've said before, there are many reasons why the material quoted from the Wayback Machine should be excluded.  This RfC addresses one of them, and as I've also said before, if a page that could not be found by browsing, that requires the user to turn off Javascript to read, and that the subject removed from his website years ago, is not, by Wikipedia standards, considered a poor source, then common sense is clearly absent here. Anyway, so far we've had just ONE opinion.  Merry Christmas! --John Brauns (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted in the correct place.Momento (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Repeating your arguments again and again, does nothing to strengthen it, on the contrary, and shows a lack of ability to listen.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, if I repeat myself, I am sorry, but all you seem to do is repeat that the source is fine, and make no comment on my reasons for saying the source is poor.  This suggests to me that it is you who are not listening.  For instance, once this discussion has disappeared into the archives, how will readers know that they have to turn Javascript off to read the source?  This is a valid point that you have made no comment on.  Regarding my other reasons for opposing the content, apart from saying that the content is not contentious, which I strongly dispute, you have made no atttempt to rationally argue why I am wrong.  For instance, the content is clearly not related to Rawat's notability, and is not basic details about his life such as how many children he has, yet you make no attempt to argue why we should ignore WP:Selfpub on this point.  So, Jossi, show me that you are listening please, by engaging in the discussion and persuading me with rational argument.  --John Brauns (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already explained this to you myself, as well as one of the editors that responded to the RfC: (a) A web page that is no longer on line is the same as a book that is out of print. If it can be verified by the wayback machine, or by visiting a library respectively, it is a verifiable source. The fact that he is a pilot, and that has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jossi, although common sense and normal use of the English language supports my position that the Wayback machine is a poor source, if no one supports my view I will concede on use of this site as a source, but I must repeat my question as to what type of biographical information should be excluded on the grounds that it is not related to a BLP subject's notability, as sanctioned by WP:Selfpub?  Your claim that he has inventions is entirely unsupported by independent sources, and your use of the term 'patents' in the plural when Rawat has half a patent on a non-commercial watch is a little careless on your behalf.  According to my sources, Rawat's income is 100% donations from his followers and subsequent investment income from those donations.  None is income from inventions, so this issue strikes at the heart of why this issue is contentious, and therefore requires non-self-published verifiable sources WP:V. --John Brauns (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said that his income is based on any patents or inventions, as we have no sources to support that statement. Same as your assertions, which are unsubstantiated opinion.  This issue is only "contentious" to you, for very obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you just wrote "The fact that he .... has invented related software and has patents, as well as his current sources of income, is relevant biographical information as per WP:SELFPUB", and then you say you never said his income is based on patents and inventions.  So what sources of income were you talking about?  Look, I agree with you - we have no sources acceptable to Wikipedia about his current income, so we should include no content that claims or implies such sources of income (apart from the TPRF quote), but please don't pretend that Rawat's source of income is not contentious.  Apart from his God claims it is the biggest contentious issue related to Rawat throughout his time in the west, and has been covered in most independent newspaper articles on him.  --John Brauns (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is becoming extremely boring ... The material you deleted needs to be restored, as it is obvious that the material is verifiable as argued by me and others that responded to the RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only one person supported using the source from the RfC, so why do you use the term 'others' in the plural?  As I've said before most of my arguments were not covered by the RfC.  I will refer this to an RfC on all the grounds I have argued if the material is reinstated.  --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't follow JB's argument that the material is contentious but now that he has compared it to the "God claims", I understand completely. I have restored it.Momento (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry that you have difficulty following the argument. --John Brauns (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by RfC respondents 

message: : That's debatable - yes, he did publish the information, but then withdrew it, and certainly didn't intend for it to be archived.  To my mind this is not like a book that has gone out of print where the book isn't reprinted simply because there are insufficent sales - this was a deliberate act to withdraw the information from publication.  We do not know the reasons, but for a BLP I think we should respect that decision.  There are other reasons why the source should not be used, particularly because the claims are contentious so WP:BLP requires them to be better sourced. --John Brauns (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that debatable? He didn't withdraw the information. If it was not intended for archiving, the normal procedure would have been followed, and internet archives would be requested to make the site unavailable. This did not happen. See also WP:CITE and above. It's hard to imagine a claim less contentious. "He has brown hair" might make it, but the ambiguity about dying could disqualify it. This is clearly the most frivolous waste of time I have ever seen take place on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "He didn't withdraw the information"???  He deleted ALL biographical information from his website.  If that's not withdrawing it, then what is?  He is probably unaware of the web archive or the procedure to get stuff removed from it, and there is no reason why he should be aware - he removed the information and we should respect that.  And if the information is not contentious, why are you contending it should be included?  --John Brauns (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your compassion, if genuine, is admirable. The information is not contentious, that is exactly why I am contending for its retention. It is just somewhat interesting, and therefore worth retaining. A snippet, you might say. I think I will leave you to the Commenters. Rumiton (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm sure you suspect, I have no compassion for Rawat, but I accept we have to write this article by Wikipedia rules, so to include any content, good or bad, that Rawat removed from publication, and that isn't well sourced elsewhere, is simply against the rules.  Read Jimbo Wales intro at the start of WK:BLP.  Regarding the contentious nature of the content, my strong personal belief is that it's either grossly exaggerated, or is simply NOT TRUE!  Take this line "Additionally, Maharaji has invented and developed a number of other aviation-related products and has a patent pending on a watch he designed.".  If the first part of this is true, why is there no patent on these products, or other record within aviation sources?  And the second part omits to mention that he is credited with only being a co-owner of the patent, and there is no record that the patent was commercially successful.  The latter part is important in that the source lists these claims under "Educational and Professional Experience" not under the later heading of hobbies.  So, I think the claims are very contentious and were only included in the deleted version of Rawat's site to puff up his resume, and because they had little foundation in reality, he wisely removed them.  But you're right, we should leave this for other editors comment. --John Brauns (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, you cannot take one side in a dispute and claim there is no dispute.  The fact that we are arguing about the content is proof the claims are contentious.  Apart from the poor quality of the source (BTW, are you intending that the article contains instructions about the need to and how to turn off javascript when viewing the source?), the content is also not appropriate because it is self serving and not relevant to the subject's notability.  I quote from WP:Selfpub:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving".  This content fails on all three counts.  --John Brauns (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, the material is verifiable, and that it what I am arguing. The material is not self-serving, unless you happen to be someone that do have something against the subject of the article. And the material is relevant as this is a biography, and many biographies contain personal aspects such as name of spouse, children, etc. which are not specific to their notability. In any case, as we already agreed to disagree, we better wait for other editors to comment rather than continuing disagreeing.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jossi, could you just clarify for me please what kind of information should be excluded from a BLP according to this guideline:- "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to their notability"?--John Brauns (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Material from self-published and questionable sources should be excluded if:
* it is contentious;
* it is unduly self-serving;
* it does involve claims about third parties;
* it does involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 
* there is reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is based primarily on such sources.
Momento (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Momento, I have also read that, but my quote above is directly from WP:Selfpub - my question is what kind of material should be excluded because "it is not relevant to their notability"--John Brauns (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though the following are "not relevant to their notability" most editors would allow a little background info, such as family, general place of residence, hobbies, accomplishments in other areas etc. In Rawat's case you would exclude poetry he's written, personal correspondence etc.Momento (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed excluding his poetry would be a serious error as per Vogon poetry--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as a perfect set of rules. Especially in the case of a biography of a living person, the spirit as well as the letter of the rules needs to be considered (with goodwill.) Rumiton (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep such a link that requires so much work on the part of readers to even find it doesn't lend itself to a well-written article.  Disabling Java on Internet Explorer requires one to restart one's computer!  Besides, the content on that now defunct website cannot be considered a resume or CV (Curriculum Vitae) by any standards I'm aware of.  Rawat would never get a job using that!  In fact, it isn't a resume and it's self-serving to use it from a defunct website in this article.  Jossi was the website designer of that old Rawat website, so there are original research and conflict of interest issues for him that must also be considered.  Moreover, I don't think people "graduate" from flight school.  People complete a course(s) and training, and receive certificates and licenses.  Additionally, it should be mentioned that Rawat didn't go past the eighth grade at St. Joe's and that he, indeed, dropped out of grammar school.  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) See WP:V, if you need to understand what verifiability of a source means; (b) The fact that I helped with a website, means nothing in this context, and no bearing on original research. Read the policy. WP:COI allegations made by you before were totally dismissed by uninvolved and respected editors already, so bringing this up again is useless; (c) The wording about "graduating" can be changed so that it only address the fact that he holds ratings for piloting aircrafts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have an outdated computer, Sylvie, but one click on the link takes me right there. I agree that an Indian boy, growing up in a single-parent family in Delhi, who left home, school and country at about the age of 12 yet made such an extraordinary impact on the world, is a point worthy of emphasis in the article. Rumiton (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the only comment so far on the inclusion of his stated role in startup companies has been positive I have reinstated the sentence. If any other comment is received, it can, of course, be considered. Rumiton (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Single-parent household? That's a different interpretation of Mataji's role in this NRM. I bet she struggled hard making ends meet, too, working 2 to 3 menial jobs every day to put food on the table and shoes on the boy's feet.  Prem Rawat hasn't made an "extradorinary impact on the world," Rumiton.  He has little to no name or face recognition in the general public. That's why when articles are written like the recent Evening Standard background has to be given about who Prem Rawat is.  Also, the source of Rawat's income throughout his life in the west is a very contentious subject.  If adherents want to attempt to sweep that fact under the rug by including his non-resume-resume from the defunct website, then I it begs plenty of verifiable, sourced criticism about the NRM's claims of sources of his wealth, the press coverage thereof, and the claims about his being God, the Perfect Master, etc., which were the subjects in just about every single legitimate press article about Guru Maharaj Ji from the time he stepped onto western soil.  This article now reads like a press release, not a biography.  You do know that, right? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do so enjoy our little chats, Sylvie. I was not thinking from his mother's POV, but he lost his father at nine. That is not an advantage in life. And his face is quite well recognised, at least where I live, from his daily TV show. The TPRF work is also well known. I have, I think, said all this before. The article acknowledges that he originally became wealthy from contributions from his followers, and states that he currently gains his income from private investment. Nothing contentious there, as far as I can see. The I-am-God thing I believe is covered pretty well: he didn't say it. (Notice my use of the colon? I am reading a book on the subject.) I also would like to see the article show more insight into the controversies that have surrounded him, but until a respected researcher looks into the subject there is not much we can do. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by involved editors 

message: * Throughout Prem Rawat's time outside India, one of the most contentious issues has been his wealth.  This article includes the fact that at least his initial source of income was donations from his followers.  The archived version of his website includes the claims that he has inventions in aviation, and he has contributed to several startup companies, although no supporting evidence for these claims is provided.  Inclusion of these claims in the article implies that his aviation inventions and his contribution to startup companies are sources of income.  Should such claims be excluded from his WP:BLP on either the grounds that they are contentious, and/or that they are not relevant to the subject's notability, as provided for in WP:SELFPUB?--John Brauns (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
* In response to FT2's request for clarification: I do not see anything contentious in reporting what a resume published in an official site said about PR's personal finances in 1999, the fact that he is an accredited pilot, or other such information. The information available in other sources such as PR's foundation, the source provided above,  as well as third party sources used in the article such as this, are consistent with these assertions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try as I might, I can see nothing contentious either. After so much effort at achieving a stable article, this time wasting over a triviality is disappointing. Rumiton (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read everything available on Prem Rawat. It is absolutely clear that since he has never charged people for his teachings or talks, he was dependent on the freely given support of those who valued his message. When he became an emancipated minor at 16 and married in 1974, he made efforts to develop a separate income for himself and his growing family that was not dependent on the whim of his supporters. With the help of astute advisors and his own skills he developed an income stream that was independent from the support of his followers and the income directed to fund the spread of his message. John Brauns issue is that since Rawat was supported by his followers in the 70s, any income derived since then is attributable to them. Brauns refuses to admit that Rawat or his advisors have done anything to increase his wealth for the last 30 years.Momento (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Momento, you have attributed to me beliefs that I do not hold, and then argue against them.  That is called a Straw man argument.  I acknowledge that he does not charge for Knowledge.  I acknowledge that he only receives travelling expenses from the organisations that organise speaking engagements for him.  I acknowledge that he has invested, and continues to invest, the gifts of appreciation he receives from his followers.  I am quite happy to accept that the investments he has made with the help of his advisers have been successful.  What I will not accept are implications that he has a separate income stream that does not originate from the gifts he has received.  --John Brauns (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who cares what you think, or do not think, accept or not accept? We are reporting what the sources say period. Our personal opinions have no bearing on this article, as you already know. So why keep mis-using these pages again and again? Se WP:NOT#FORUM ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by involved editors

message: Please understand one thing John, one unpublished person disagreeing with a published source doesn't make a claim contentious. And since the article already includes comments about Rawat's income then a precedent has already been established. I'm not going to waste another minute on this.Momento (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, I am very surprized to hear this from you'. You have repeatedly removed contents sourced to reputable source, only because you did not agree with them. Andries (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Momento, I agree that this is proving a waste of time, but if I might be allowed one last response.  Because of Rawat's press, anything related to his income and his wealth is contentious.  It's nothing to do with my personal opinion.  And how you make out that his aviation software is related to his notability is frankly beyond me.  Oh, and it would have been nice if Jossi had provided the other sources to the aviation software and startups he claimed, before he shut down the discussion.  I'm also disappointed that other Wiki editors didn't give their opinions on the RfCs, either pro or against the disputed content.  I guess the subject is simply not interesting enough. :-)--John Brauns (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is interesting enough but this dispute is incomprehensible. Cool Hand Luke summed it up when he said "I don't see why there's a problem." Neither does anyone else. Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it! I see what the problem is. You are using the word contentious to mean something like of interest. It does not. It comes from contend meaning strive, fight, compete, be in rivalry. If reliable sources were in opposition to each other, this matter would be contentious. They are not. They agree that Prem Rawat's present income stems from the successful investment of gifts that he received, and not from any organisation or from events that take place today. Thank goodness that is finally cleared up. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought we'd stopped this discussion, but if you are going to misrepresent my position, I will respond.  The claims we are talking about are self-published claims where there are no other sources.  Wikipedia guidelines state that such claims can be included if, amongst other reasons, they are not contentious.  So, I hope you are following this.  Whatever the authors of this guideline meant, they certainly did not intend 'contentious' to mean that there are rival sources who disagree, because the very guideline specifically states this guideline refers to situations where there are no other sources.  --John Brauns (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I feel your pain. Now I feel misrepresented. Rumiton (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research doesn't count