Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Lead sentence or paragraph

Please look at MOS:OPENPARABIO. The lead sentence should contain these components:

Name(s) and title(s)
Dates of birth (and death)
Context (location, nationality, etc.)
One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)

Most relevantly for the recent edits, are items 4 and 5. It is inappropriate for the lead sentence to only state "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957) is an Indian American also known formerly as Maharaji." This neither states what position or activity he is known for, not why he is noteworthy. If you wish to edit the lead sentence, kindly make sure that you change it to a sentence that follows the guidelines at MOS:OPENPARABIO. LK (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: I came back to the precedent appellation until we found a better and valid sources. Maybe we have one, right under our nose, as there is a lot of reference quoted. Let look at that. It is a little bit outdated, but you are right, it is important to indicate an activity. I'm searching for secondary sources around Speaker, Teacher or something like that. Let see and we will find a solution. But this article about Devendra Banhart, as sympathetic and funny it is, can't be considered as appropriate for Prem Rawat. --Faunus (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

How about something in this vein:
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957, formerly known by honorifics such as Maharaji) is an Indian American who, after leading a new religious movement, the Divine Light Mission (DLM), when he was a teenager, evolved into an inspirational speaker transmitting his message of peace through organizations such as The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF). ...
? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That sentence is a bit long and unwieldly. How about:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957, formerly known as Maharaji) is an Indian American who heads the Prem Rawat Foundation. He is a former spiritual leader who lead the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (a new religious movement) ....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs)

The proposal of Francis Schonken is more correct than from Lawrencekhoo (you forgot to sign your contribution). It highlights the evolution from one approach to another. Few remarks:

- Prem Rawat does not lead the organizations that support his work. They act according to his directions or his goals of spreading his message, but he has never been the head of any of these organizations. There are people designated for that.

- Also when he arrived in the West, he was a minor and DLM was controlled by his mother and others.

- The split came with his mother, when he wanted to take his movement out of what it was becoming, a new religious movement. I will try to find this quote from a recent speech in which he explained that at the time people who followed his teaching were trying to create a "non-religious religion", something a little improbable which claimed not to be a religion, but had all its attributes: beliefs, rituals, etc.

- This biography should focus mainly on the man, his background and his message, with organizations playing a secondary role in all of this.

I therefore propose this following formulation, taking into account the available sources but which, with hindsight, appear a little dated:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957, formerly known by honorifics such as Maharaji) is an Indian American who, after being perceived as the leader of a new religious movement when he was a teenager, has imposed itself over time as an inspirational speaker transmitting a message of personal peace.

In the meantime, I withdraw the reference to the article on Devendra Banhart. I explained previously why this reference does not seem valid to me. Let us limit ourselves to articles whose main object is the study of Prem Rawat and his action. Let’s not forget that the publication date is important too. Relaying in 2004 the appreciation that may have been given to Prem Rawat in his early days is a bit anachronistic, isn't it? --Faunus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo and Faunus: I've now reverted to the earlier version that had been stable for a long period of time. I'm OK with collaborating towards an improved version, but reverting and re-reverting one another is not OK: a consensus for a new version has to be established here, not by reverting and re-reverting in mainspace. As said above, at #Is there anything to be done on this page to make it acceptable?: "... If your changes are challenged then a discussion should proceed until there is agreement"--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

On the ground of the matter: "spiritual leader" does not seem to be (any more?) a very common qualifier for Prem Rawat, otherwise there would be a broad choice of reliable sources using it, so I'm not sure this is a qualifier that would work well in the lead sentence. On the other hand, Lawrencekhoo is right: The New York Times is generally seen as a reliable source, so removing such source as unreliable is usually seen as at least inopportune, if not disruptive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Still brainstorming:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born 10 December 1957), known as Maharaji when he was leading a new religious movement in the 1970s, is an Indian American who is transmitting a message of peace through organizations such as The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF). ...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I'm sorry to remind you that a consensus was reached on this new intro before your intervention and I invite you to refer to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Is_there_anything_to_be_done_on_this_page_to_make_it_acceptable?

So let's start from there because otherwise we don't move forward. Your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules is variable geometry, it seems to me. Once again, I am surprised by your untimely interventions, which once again lead us into an editorial war in which I refuse to participate. You know very well that by reintroducing all these Hindu terms which are no longer valid in India (and again this is to be verified for some), you are also reintroducing a cognitive bias emphasizing the origins of the person, which can be detrimental to him. I'm going to turn to a Wikipedia administrator for an opinion, because all this does not strike me as being fair.

Last point: by questioning the validity of this article in the context of a biography on Prem Rawat (classified under the Music section), I am not questioning the newspaper itself. Don't mix things up.

I will be relieved and very happy to see you resume the dialogue in an open and constructive manner as we had started to do. I did not hesitate to congratulate you when you solved the question of TimelessToday better than I had proposed. --Faunus (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, as said, #Is there anything to be done on this page to make it acceptable? contains: "... If your changes are challenged then a discussion should proceed until there is agreement" – the lead sentence of your proposal is now challenged (by a revert to an earlier version which has proven to be stable over a long period of time), which means that now "a discussion should proceed until there is agreement"; for clarity: all of this conforms to proceedings described in the WP:CONACHIEVE policy section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Faunus: in your counter-proposal above, you wrote "... , has imposed itself over time as ..." – I don't understand what that means (does it mean that the new religious movement imposed itself as a ... speaker? doesn't seem to make sense; if it should read instead as Rawat imposing himself as ..., then that seems a little disrespectful while to impose oneself is rather obtrusive: is Rawat someone who "imposes" himself? – don't think that is what you were trying to say), so I can't really say what I think about it; leave alone that it would likely be impossible to find sources for it. Can you rephrase or explain? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I disagree with your interpretation of consensus. I made a proposal on March 16. On the 17th someone asked me to get a consensus before I could make the change. Asking him how to do this since I had never encountered this process, I got no answer. On March 20, therefore, I made it clear whether there were any objections in arguing for the changes I was proposing. Littleolive oil agreed to my changes, asking me to allow a little over a week for any objections to be voiced. So I let 10 days go by and on April 1 I asked Littleolive Oil to make the changes. Unanswered and a bit lost in the process, so I re-did an “Edit request” on April 6th and that's where 2 users encouraged me to do them myself. Neither you nor Lawrencekhoo came forward at that time and it was more than 15 days between my first proposal and the consensus reached with the users involved.

That you come today to question certain changes, without justifying them and deliberately ignoring this consensus, is not correct. You do not take into account this consensus found on the 6th, your first interventions on the page happened on April 14th, without making a proposal first on the talk page as is the rule for semi-protected pages. Did you hear about the The three-revert rule? I just came over and I guess it was 10 times you have done on this page at that time. That is how things happen and it is not respectful of other users.

As for the wording that I have proposed, you are probably right, it is poorly worded. My English is not always good, and I often use Google Translate to help me. I didn't mean to impose oneself in the sense of "to impose something", but we say that in French when the action of a person, initially misunderstood, ends up being recognized. That was the meaning I wanted to give my sentence and if you have an editorial suggestion, you are welcome. --Faunus (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Any objections to describing as "founder of The Prem Rawat Foundation"? LK (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It would seem to me that, if he "heads" an organization named after him, the fact that he founded it would seem to be self-apparent.

Here is another proposal for the intro:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), (formerly known by honorifics such as Maharaj Ji) was born 10 December 1957, and is an Indian American who since 1963, has consistently advocated for “inner peace” in his motivational speeches. Mr. Rawat asserts that a certain “inner peace” can be achieved through the practice of a set of “meditation techniques,” which he refers to as “Knowledge.” He first began advocating for these meditation techniques in India, in 1963 at the young age of 6, in support of his father’s (Hans Ram Singh Rawat) teachings. Early on Mr. Rawat highlighted the Indian spiritual aspects of his teachings, in which he represented himself as a “guru." His role as a guru was highlighted in the 1960’s and 1970’s when his organization was then known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM). He later came to de-emphasize the importance of his own role in the teaching of the meditation techniques, yet he still represents himself as a “master,” and his students as “disciples” during the process of teaching the Knowledge meditation techniques. --see ref below-- His primary organization is now known as the Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), an international charitable organization which contributes to, or administers several relief and aid programs in various countries, which organization he heads.

Reference- <ref name="master_disciple">Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organizational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62/ref>

Warrenfrank (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion, Warrenfrank. I find it very well written and perfect for a bio. Information that could also be referenced from Andrea Cagan's biography, Peace is possible, is articulated in an understandable way. One point needs to be corrected: it was at the age of 8 in 1966 when his father died that he himself began to teach these techniques. On the other hand, there is no point in pointing out the foundation in this paragraph, since it is already mentioned at the end of the introduction. --Faunus (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Warrenfrank, thanks for your input. A few points:

Doesn't conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidance (WP:MOS, MOS:LEAD, MOS:BIO etc) on around a dozen points.
Reads like publicity: too one-sided
"His primary organization is ..." (emphasis added) – do we have a source for that? There are several other parts of the proposal that are also not currently covered by sourced content in the body of the article or by direct references in the lead, e.g. "... who since 1963, has consistently advocated for “inner peace” in his motivational speeches" – this looks like synthesis: I have seen no source yet contending that Rawat would have been giving "motivational" speeches when he was around six years, etc.

Regarding Lawrencekhoo's suggestion:

The last paragraph of the lead section contains "In 2001 he established The Prem Rawat Foundation ..."
In the body of the article, there is "In 2001, Prem Rawat founded The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF)" with a reference

So afaics there are no objections to describing him as "founder of The Prem Rawat Foundation". But if you mean for the lead sentence: it kind of fails #5 of MOS:OPENPARABIO – not something Rawat is particularly known for afaik: at least, there are things he is likely far better known for. The fact that the "best" reference for this fact (in the body of the article) is apparently an archived page of his own website (not something that is apparently commonly repeated in independent reliable sources) indicates that this founding of TPRF is taking far from a central position in what is significant w.r.t. Rawat.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. "if he "heads" an organization named after him, the fact that he founded it would seem to be self-apparent" – I don't think Prem Rawat "heads" TPRF. In 2017 TPRF was headed by Maya Rawat (ceo), Matt Altman (secretary) and Bruce Keenan (cfo); In 2019 Linda Pascotto replaced Maya Rawat as ceo, with the same secretary and cfo. So this "... would seem to be self-apparent" reasoning is in fact some rather bad WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

New factual and bibliographical elements concerning Prem Rawat

@Francis Schonken: I come back to you to inform that I have done extensive background analysis work that led to the current problematic situation regarding PR's biography. I have also gathered many secondary sources of good quality which make it possible to realize how much better he is today perceived and invited to express himself on many media, as well as with various institutions which have understood the interest in his human-based approach and his eminently positive resources, when it becomes aware of his potential.

I have therefore created two sections to present the fruit of my work on my own talk page which I invite you to consult. Please do not vandalize it. User_talk:Faunus

Once you have learned about these new elements, I hope we can resume the dialogue in a more constructive way.

I would really appreciate you to show your good will and remove the gratuitous and unwarranted additions that you reintroduced in the first paragraph of the introduction. I remind you that just because Wikipedia is a space open to everyone, it doesn't mean that we can do anything about it.--Faunus (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that you used the reinsertion of Hindu terms in the intro of the bio in retaliation for disagreement on another subject, I withdraw them to return to the version which had obtained a consensus on April 6 before your intervention. --Faunus (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have transferred “observations, analyzes and new sources available” to my user page User:Faunus and added a section #PR's message: remarkable consistency over time.--Faunus (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are people here rewriting the lede? This was hashed over for years before it became stable. Please reinsert the full lede as it was prior to your edits, and that includes all of Prem Rawat's titles, including Balyogeshwar and Guru Maharaj Ji. You are not supposed to change things in this particular article willy nilly. You must discuss and receive consensus prior to making any changes, and if you cannot reach consensus we will have to take it to the next step of dispute resolution, or whatever the next step may be. Please revert your edits to the lede. Then we can discuss your reasons for these edits and if they are logical and needed. Remember, this is an biography with already well-researched sources. ~~Sylviecyn

A consensus was reached a few weeks ago, you can consult it here #Is there anything to be done on this page to make it acceptable? and there #Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021. These procedures must be followed by everyone, which unfortunately they did not. This article should be improved after 11 years of sleep. New sources exist. I invite you to consult these new elements on my user page User:Faunus. We can discuss the subject, if necessary.--Faunus (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Italian, and you cannot introduce foreign language sources into an English article -- how is that helpful here? I have never once edited the article itself because of my bias as a former devotee and premie of Prem Rawat. I have only had discussions on the talk pages in order to keep a balance on the main Prem Rawat articles, because most of the previous editors (at beginning years of this article) were devotees of Prem Rawat -- but who refused to admit they have a bias. I'm not planning to make any edits on the article proper, but I will from time to time pop in to comment here. Just to give you a more fair point of view. Btw, I haven't been a true-believing, devoted premie for over 40 years -- plenty of time to get my head and heart back into the wonderful real world. Be well. Sylviecyn (talk)

I agree that half articles are in foreign language, but only half I will underline. For some of them, I provided the link to the translation. Remember that PR is working on a global level and, therefore, he is the subject of articles in different languages. At least, I still limit myself to articles in the Roman alphabet! I choose them among many in relation to the information they contain and their editorial quality. I don’t read Italian and Spanish either, but I used Google translation. I must confess I do the same sometimes when I work in English, because of my shortcomings. My English must be a bit baroque sometimes… Wikipedia advocates, to some extent, the use of foreign sources to better represent the diversity of cultures. Read this if you are interesting Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight at section 2. --Faunus (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Redux (lead sentence)

In sum, regarding the lead sentence, whether there was some kind of consensus for it some time ago is quite immaterial: there is no consensus for its current version now. So, we can go back to the prior consensus, or try to find a new one at #Lead sentence or paragraph above. Failing to find a new consensus, will likely mean that this goes back to a previous (relatively broader) consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood how consensus works. It is achieved on the basis of arguments that are presented clearly and supported by facts verifiable by sources. If you have such arguments and a proposition, present them here. Saying that you disagree on principle is no way forward. I invite you to refer to the analytical work that I started on my user page (3 chapters for the moment, but more to come), to demonstrate, with supporting evidence, that the current biography has remained focused on an old and erroneous view of Prem Rawat 's approach, who is getting a much better reception today. I hope one day to be able to reach a consensus on this point. What do you think of this more than desirable development?--Faunus (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance

To @franchis schonken

Sorry if I am not following guicdelines correctly. I am very new at this! And this is my first contribution to Talk!

I just want to thank Francis Schonken for their guidance in formatting references correctly. It is not so easy.

I hope the latest insert concerning the MOU was referenced correctly. If not, please advise.

Keep well! Richard Reive Richard.reive Richard.reive (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Richard.reive (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Prem Rawat on Wikiquote

For those interested, I undertook an analysis of the Wikiquote page devoted to PR and the lessons that can be drawn from it. I have compared some of his earliest statements to others from these last ten years. Below is the introduction to this study, continued on my user page:

Prem Rawat is someone very simple, in the truest sense of it: he lives and expresses himself in the present moment. When he gets up on stage, maybe he has one or two ideas he wants to talk about, but nothing is really prepared; he speaks from his heart to people in front of him. That’s how he takes them on a journey. This is not a usual lecture; words are only one aspect of the experience to which he invites us.

That’s why quoting him is difficult. A quote should be a whole in itself. It should represent a moment, synthesize a concept, represent a thought.

I went through the hundred quotes currently posted on Wikiquote, and I ended up with the same problem that exists for almost all pages about PR: remnants of an edit war which has just stopped for lack of fighters, most of the contributors having been banned, from what I understand. Most of the quotes are not really quotes, just passages from his speeches that opponents have used to put forward a particular point of view. And nothing has changed for 13 or 14 years, this for a living person, I underline, who continues to speak a lot, continues to evolve in his art of expressing the indescribable. He even wrote two books!

So, I will comment on a few quotes and add a few more. This will perhaps give an idea of what it would be possible to do, if the will to rewrite this biography in an honest and intelligent way could interest Wikipedia, in its concern to provide quality and unbiased information…

Organizations

I propose to group the organizations into 2 sections: the old organizations (DLM and EV) the current organizations (TPRF, WOPG and TimelessToday). Are there any objections?--Faunus (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is fine the way it is, including how the organizations are described. Please don't edit it. Sylviecyn (talk)

It can certainly be improved, so many things are distorted and misunderstood. But, to this specific point, the only thing I want to do is group informations in a more coherent way (past and present organizations). What argument do you have to oppose me?--Faunus (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

When I started to take an interest in this page, I immediately saw how the influence of ex-premies was predominant, well helped it is true by everything that could be written about Prem Rawat in his early days. I recall that he was a young teenager who had just landed in the West (see the arguments developed here). But I did not understand to what extent the influence of this hate group had generated a drift resulting in a whole series of ancillary articles, some of which are really problematic in terms of the encyclopedist and humanist project that is Wikipedia.

I just discovered the Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital pages. I started to fly over them. The first few lines, the summary and their length were enough to convince me that we are here clearly in the presence of a defamation company which does not target them, but the one they represented. Between the two, they add up 32 times the word "cult"!

Before deciding on their possible deletion, I propose to isolate the content of the main page of Prem Rawat, to preserve a minimum of his reputation, by removing the links in the page.--Faunus (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The quality of the sources

Just this message to inform readers of this page that I have started a new article on my user page, which addresses the issue of the quality of the sources which will include several chapters. The first one gathers general informations about the bibliographic page dedicated to Prem Rawat.--Faunus (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Below the beginning of Part 2 on my user page, about Mike Finch's testimony:

I was interested in the last reference on Bibliography of PR, Without the Guru: How I Took My Life Back After Thirty Years, by Mike Finch, 2009. This is a testimonial from the person who created the Prem Rawat page. Although Mike Finch did not register on Wikipedia, and is therefore difficult to track later, he did sign this first version: “Mike Finch’s introduction to Maharaji”.

Symbolically, it thus closes a sequence on several the most questionable of the pages concerning PR, highlighting the incredible influence that a small and very active group of those disappointed with Knowledge were able to exert on this narration.

Therefore, I read Finch’s book and what I discovered there sheds light on the manipulation he and others engaged in, probably in good faith as far as he was concerned…

The link to the full article Dr Finch’s strange book – Faunus (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For those interested, I published a third part at the chapter “The quality of the sources” which highlights some mistakes commonly made by sociologists in the 1970s, thus introducing a cognitive bias that we still have trouble getting rid of today. This should lead the Wikipedian community to take a step back from the hasty conclusions of this distant period. In any case, it is the hope that I have for the more or less near future.

“The problem that we encounter with almost all of the sources used to write the Prem Rawat’s biography is that they have not been updated with regard to the considerable evolution that PR has infused into his “movement”, a questionable notion in terms of his approach. Indeed, PR does not seek to unite disparate individuals in the same belief or ideology. He encourages all people, regardless of their backgrounds, to take a personal journey of becoming aware of truths that everyone carries within themselves, but to which little attention is paid.

I leaned on one of these sources, because it is very documented and allows, by going through it, correction of some untruths which have been written about this teaching. This is Maeve Price’s 1979 article under the title: The Divine Light Mission as a social organization (Sociological Review, No. 27).

Of course, this study is not primarily intended to deal with PR’s teaching or its underlying message (its title and the introduction are self-explanatory on this point). But it does shed a different light on the period of the 1970s and how many specialists missed out on the completely original and innovative approach of PR.

There are several explanations for this mistake, but the main one – and this is why this article is interesting – is due to the excessive media exposure to which the movement has been subjected, through these extravagances and internal dissensions, which took precedence over what was at its epicenter, the eye of the cyclone, its raison d’être: ancestral teaching brought up to date for our contemporaries.

“This December, I will be sixty-two. So, I’ve been around for a while. I started talking to people when I was four years old. I started taking this message out, and the responsibility of taking this message out when I was nine. So, I have seen a little bit, to say the least. I have gone from one culture to another culture. And these two cultures that I have gone in between were diametrically opposed. One was India, one was America.” – Prem Rawat in Milan, Italy, Jun 16, 2019

The link to the full article From the trap of systemic analysis. Thanks for reading me and think about. – Faunus (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

An underestimated work because it is not academic

I have just added a new section to my analysis of Prem Rawat‘s page, which will highlight the relevance of his message. From there, anything that has been said and written a little lightly loses its interest in order to rewrite an honest, factual, up-to-date and non-defamatory biography. Below is the start of this article.

“Let us first recall the very essence of Prem Rawat's message, his one and only reference: “What you are looking for is within you.” This is what he reiterates when he speaks.

However, this "interior" is not what we usually refer to: our intellect. PR speaks to a more intimate, deeper part of ourselves: the realm of the heart - where we feel things, where ultimately we live them, where our personal convictions are forged.

Because this is the peculiarity of PR's approach: it invites us to take no one’s word for it, including his. At the heart of his message is this difference between belief and knowledge. He invites us to seek within ourselves the answers for what is essential, vital, existential.

“We are very interested in knowing what is going on in this world. Are you interested in what is going on in your little world? This is what I talk about. Some people understand what I’m saying, some people don’t understand what I am saying. There are people in this world who like to believe—not know, just believe.” – Prem Rawat in Santa Monica, California, March 6, 2010

“You didn’t come with a manual. And it’s not because one couldn’t be made available. But maybe a manual was built into you. No need to have a printed manual when in you, there is the want that has been placed to be fulfilled.” – Prem Rawat in Dublin, Ireland, July 15, 2009

This approach is not new. We find traces of it in almost all cultural traditions on all continents. What, on the other hand, is new here is the desire to put knowledge, previously reserved for a few initiates, within the reach of the greatest number…”

The link to the full article on my user page User:Faunus#An underestimated work because it is not academic – Faunus (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I inform the community of users who follow this page, that I had a second part to this section, based on a talk that PR does in November 8, 2019, during the celebration of his father's birthday. Just to give you a glimpse of it, below the beginning. But read it until the very end on my user page, you will be surprised.

A message that is sometimes esoteric, but never mysterious

On the occasion of the birthday of his father Shri Hans, who was the one who revealed the Knowledge to him and from whom he took over after his death, Prem Rawat gave a brilliant demonstration of his talent as a speaker during a talk he gave in 2019. Starting from a rather mundane observation about our propensity to constantly dream of chimeras that only bring us disillusionment, he leads us to consider what it means to be “unrepentant dreamers”. Is there not a connection to be made with our deepest aspirations as human beings? Here are some excerpts from what he said on that occasion, before drawing some conclusions…

The link to the full article on my user page User:Faunus#A message that is sometimes esoteric, but never mysterious.

And to answer to AndyTheGrump, I know that Talk page is not a forum. Therefore, I limit myself to keeping the community informed here of what I publish on my own page and which brings together a certain amount of information that has never been analyzed. I hope, at the end of this work, which is nearing completion, to be able to come up with a strategy for rewriting this biography, respecting Wikipedia's criteria, but taking into account a few specifics that are not encountered elsewhere. But it all takes a lot of work. I get help with the final writing of my texts, to make them as clear as possible. Please feel free to come and discuss it on my own talk page. Thank you for your understanding. Faunus (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The above misuse of this page to promote your own personal opinions and analysis of the subject of this biography is exactly why WP:NOTFORUM exists. If you persist in misusing this talk page in this manner, I shall report it in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you threatening me? Haven't I already lined up a number of factual elements that merit reflection?

What I do is not a general discussion about the page, even if sometimes general arguments can come out. I try to show that we have specific problems here as:

- Wikipedia rules aren’t well respected for BLV

- The page is widely outdated and excessively focused on the period when PR was growing handicaps that he later knew how to overcome.

- Secondary sources are not properly weighted and we have a lack of some for the longest period.

- Their quality is not equal too and some are discarded because there is a lack of rationality here: we think we are in front of religion (what “expert” report) where we are in front of a science: the knowledge of the self is a science, not a belief.

We need to reconsider things and try to find a way to rewrite a new biography, more accurate. It is possible, if there is a will and an understanding.--Faunus (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The recognition of bullshit is a science, not a belief. Consider this a final warning (or 'threat' if you prefer). Carry on using this talkpage as a blog to promote your own personal interpretations of Rawat's financially-advantageous platitudes, and I will raise the matter at WP:ANI. Where I suspect that people might decide, after looking at your single-focus promotional editing, and inability to understand the purpose of an encyclopaedia, that the project can manage better without you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me and let's talk about some factual stuff about this page. I can also advise you to reread some rules of good conduct in our exchanges About civility. Let's talk about the substance and if you prefer to do so on my talk page, you're welcome.Faunus (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in discussing anything with you regarding the inappropriate material you have been posting here. I have told you what my next action will be if your conduct here continues. That still applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TimelessToday, LLC, and their 'app'

This article - presented as a biography of Prem Rawat - contains, in the lede, the infobox, and the body of the article, several statements referring to TimeLess Today, a limited liability company apparently founded by the Prem Rawat Foundation, which sells a mobile app to "present[...] Prem Rawat's message to people who are interested in peace." Nothing in this article tells us what this app does beyond that. Nothing in this article tells us why a mobile app is needed to receive messages about "peace". Nothing in this article gives us any indication as to whether Rewat himself has any meaningful direct connection with the limited liability company, or has had any input regarding what aspects of his 'message' are sold on the app. Nothing beyond content concerning raw statements about sales/downloads is sourced to any third-party source. Can anyone explain how this content referencing a commercial app can be seen as anything but promotional, and furthermore entirely off-topic for a biography? This article isn't about the Foundation, never mind a commercial spin-off selling some sort of app for some vaguely-Rewat-related purpose. Accordingly, unless independent sources can be found which tell us what this app does, and why it is of direct relevance to a biography, everything relating to this product needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

To have more information, how we got to this formulation about TimelessToday app, refer to Talk:Prem_Rawat#TimelessToday. We had a long discussion about it with Francis Schonken and this is him who suggests this formulation that I agree. One clarification: this application is available for download free of charge, it is not sold. We only mentioned it, to update a little bit this page about one aspect which are organizations related to Prem Rawat. We have not further developed the role of this app because we don’t have any secondary sources about it. We contented ourselves with repeating the description given on download links. But today it is at the core of PR's message delivery system (virtual events, livestreams, series…). Some of the content is free, others require a subscription. In free content, there is the PEAK (Peace Education and Knowledge), a course conduct by PR himself about Self-knowledge.

I have documented the number of times organizations are mentioned in the article: The Divine Light Mission (or DLM): 46; Elan Vital (or EV): 36; The Prem Rawat Foundation (or TPRF): 19; Words of Peace: 10; TimelessToday: 7. 82 times for past organizations and 36 times for existing organizations. There are even specific pages dedicated to DLM and EV, which doesn’t deserve it in my opinion, but this allows to focus on all the negative things that have been said a long time ago. Where I agree with you is that we should be more about a man's biography, his action, his message, organizations being only supports. --Faunus (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about how the 'formulation' was arrived at, though from a look at the relevant discussion, it seems to have involved only two people anyway. [1] What I'm asking is where are the independent sources that explain what it does, and justify inclusion of content about it in the article. The infobox asserts that Rewat is 'Known for' TimeLess Today, but nothing the article says backs that up in any way. And even if the couple of sentences regarding the app in the article body were justified (which I think is questionable, without independent sources), inclusion of such material in the lede is contrary to what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section advises: that the lede should "...summarize the most important points...". A few sentences scattered about the article body, telling readers next to nothing beyond the fact that an app exists do not establish 'importance'. If there aren't secondary sources, it clearly isn't important, since it hasn't even been discussed.

And I'd ask you to stay on topic. As I have already made clear, I'm not interested in your opinions on the article as a whole. At least not while they are framed in the manner you have been framing them. I am instead discussing a specific issue. One that should be able to be addressed without having to go through the sort of protracted factionalised too-and-fro argumentation that has plagued Wikipedia's coverage of Rewat in the past. I am asking a simple question. Where are the sources which justify specific coverage in this article relating to TimeLess Today and their app? It should be possible to resolve this without getting bogged down in a broader open-ended discussion, since Wikipedia policy regarding the need for sourcing is clear enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We were two of us discussing this then, we are two of us discussing it today. I don't see where the problem is, as long as the discussion is courteous and in a cooperative spirit to move this page forward. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says: “The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.” The mention of TimelessToday is factual information which does not need a secondary source to be substantiated. There is no doubt about the connection between Prem Rawat and this organization and I have explained why it is important today to, at least, mention it.

I remind that we are in 2021, and the narrative and sources from the past play a disproportionate role. It is important that this biography is the reflection of all periods and not only the beginning when Prem Rawat multiplied the handicaps (age, cultural shift, media exposure…) and thus gives an erroneous vision of this man and his action. --Faunus (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the content re Timeless Today in the lede, and from the 'Known for' section in the infobox, for the reasons I've given above. 'Explanations' based on personal opinions entirely unsupported by valid sources are of no significance here. And neither are your ongoing efforts to divert this discussion over specific content into yet more soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't do this unilaterally without having finished the discussion. This is not a good way to go. Your interpretation of the sources is incorrect. For an achievement which is personally owned, there is no need for proof other than ownership or affiliation. It is as if you could only quote someone's book if someone else had mentioned it. That does not make sense. What is the urge here? What is the risk or the non-neutral aspect here? Please revert to the previous version or I will. I don’t want to enter an editorial war, whatever the opinions or yours elsewhere. This is not my conception and Wikipedia rules about collaborative encyclopedia. Thank you for your corporation. --Faunus (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't misinterpreted any sources. It would be rather difficult to misinterpret sources that don't exist. As for collaboration, and Wikipedia rules, neither require cessation of edits while a 'discussion' is going on which consists of one party insisting on adding their own personal opinions regarding off-topic matters into the thread. The material was undue, since there was no source cited to justify its inclusion either in the lede or the infobox. The app exists, clearly. It has been downloaded, clearly. It gives access to Rawat-related media, certainly. Beyond that, we can tell the readers nothing of significance, so giving it the prominence it was getting in the article was contrary to the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Claiming for example that Rawat is 'known for' something while failing to provide an external source that even discusses his connection with it is utterly untenable.

If you are unwilling to accept this, and can't find independent sources which justify inclusion in the lede and infobox, then clearly we aren't going to agree. At which point, an RfC might be the best option. Frankly, I think this article could do with more input from uninvolved people anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are intended to attest to facts whose author's good faith alone is not sufficient for them to be established. In the present case, the existence of a commercial company is attested by its legal existence. The link is established with Prem Rawat as well. All of this you admit yourself in your pitch. Primary sources are eligible in some cases like this. So, I do not see where the problem is except to include information that you do not want to see appear without explaining clearly why.

On the other hand, regarding your inadvertent intervention on the page itself, after a few one-sided exchanges, ignoring my arguments, is clearly an abuse of how to post on a semi-protected page. No consensus has been requested or accepted between us. To my knowledge, this is the first time that you have intervened here. What purpose? There are a number of things that I have had to explain to you several times that you clearly weren't aware of. This is not a criticism, but in collaborative work, it is useful to take into account each other's expertise. This is how a common understanding was broadened leading to a better writing of the article. The fact that I am personally involved, as you say, just means that I have some experience / expertise on the subject. That’s what I’m trying to put into better writing of this article, despite the problem encountered with the sources and their use too broad in some cases and too restrictive in others. But, I agree with you, the involvement of other people, with a minimum of interest and neutrality on the subject would be very welcomed. Faunus (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The existence of Timeless Today LCC has never been the subject of dispute. What the sources cited in the article fail to demonstrate however is that the existence of this company makes it, or its app, something that Rawat is 'known for' in a way that justifies such a statement in the infobox, or that the company or the app, are of such significance that they merit inclusion in the lede of this article, while the article fails to tell the reader anything of consequence about them, and while the independent sourcing needed to demonstrate such significance apparently cannot be found. But whatever. I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who's self-proclaimed 'expertise' clearly doesn't extend to an understanding of basic Wikipedia policies regarding the need for sourcing etc. I shall then, after carefully rereading Wikipedia:Requests for comment to ensure I'm fully up to date with current practice, compose an RfC, which hopefully will resolve the matter. There is no great urgency over this though, and I may take a day or so over it, since a cooler head is likely to produce better wording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources for a biography.

I would have assumed that it was more or less self-evident that sources cited in a biography need to be actually discussing the subject of the biography in order to be relevant to the article in question. It appears, however, that a couple of contributors here think otherwise. [2][3] Since it appears that neither contributor is willing to discuss the matter here, despite being requested to do so, I will give them one last chance to respond to a simple request to explain why they think that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply here, and that vague waffle about a 'foundation' which isn't the subject of this biography can somehow apply instead, before I raise the matter (and the tag-team edit-warring) elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, why you "will give us one last chance"? Give us more if you want us to progress together. I already explained how this biography is trapped by unbalanced and old sources which aren't relevent now in 2021. I picked on a very interesting book this thinking of Rémi Mathis, current Chairman of the Scientific Council of Wikimedia France (translation is mine):

“The intention is to be efficient and pragmatic, not hesitating to create and delete rules as needed. This is called “the creative interpretation of the rules”, much more provocatively named in English “Ignores all rules!”. Of course, this is not a praise of anarchy, but rather the recognition that the rules were adopted by human beings at a time T, and that, in the face of real situations, they may be obsolete or ask to be applied in a more nuanced way than to the letter. But this first assumes a detailed knowledge of them and, faced with an outdated, superfluous or simply absurd rule, a Wikipedian is expected to report it and make the said rule evolve, not just ignores it.” – Wikipédia – Dans les coulisses de la plus grande encyclopédie du monde (Behind the Scenes of the World’s Largest Encyclopedia), Rémi Mathis, First éditions (2021), page 55.

My question to you, in return, (as you are more aware than me about the current rules on the English Wikipedia): is there any rule which deals about this problem of unbalanced and outdated sources? Thanks --Faunus (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your 'explanation' is based around a fundamental misconception: that Wikipedia contributors can decide amongst themselves that sources are 'unbalanced' and 'outdated', and 'no longer relevant', and that they can somehow fix the problem (if one actually exists) by cherry-picking limited new material, and excluding older material, in order to arrive at a new 'balance' to the satisfaction of those particular contributors. That simply isn't how it works. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is policy here too. But only to the extent that it is aimed at " improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Improving the encyclopaedia. Not to right great wrongs as perceived by individual contributors who think that their favourite philosopher/nation/soccer team hasn't been treated fairly in the past. An encyclopaedia that worked that way wouldn't deserve the name. Whether Wikipedia always lives up to the standards it aspires to is a matter of debate (personally I think it falls far too short, far too often), but selective exclusion of sourced material in the manner you have been proposing certainly isn't the way to improve its reputation. To be blunt, if Rewat's turbulent and controversial past past has attracted more attention from outside sources than the things he's up to now, it might possibly be unfortunate for him, but that isn't Wikipedia's problem to fix. We can't. Not without abandoning fundamental precepts arrived at over many years of discussion and debate. This article will have to reflect what the sources say. Not what we might like them to say.

If you want to work to improve Rewat's reputation, based on your own personal interpretation of how he has been misrepresented, fine. You are welcome to do so. Just not on Wikipedia. That isn't what it is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

But who is Wikipedia if not the community of its contributors? The rules are made by them. Then, for the writing of the articles, there are communities which are formed, or the interplay of interactions arrives at a more or less satisfactory result.

I am not proposing to sidestep the past but to contextualize it in the light of the present. We are on a biography of a living person who is still active, a little less exposed to the light and we understand why. One can also wonder why all his rumors and slanders that circulated on his account no longer circulate today, if their basis was still relevant? More likely, there was misunderstanding as I have amply demonstrated. Because, in the end, what is Prem Rawat accused of? I asked you the question, but you didn't answer?

And then the sources you can make them say pretty much whatever you want. This is the case, for example, of the source which is most abundantly cited in the biography of Prem Rawat: 26 times in total, mainly to confirm events which occurred between 1971 and 1976. It is about the very serious sociological study carried out during 5 years by James V. Downton and which he reports in his book published in 1979, Sacred Journeys, the conversion of young American to the Divine Light Mission. Here is the link to the article I just finish on the subject: A source of quality diverted from his remarks. Maybe it can help to understand one of the problems of this biography. --Faunus (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to engage further in this pointless round-in-circles debate. If you want to 'contextualize' Rewat in the 'light of the present' you will have to do so somewhere else. Wikipedia isn't the platform for that. Not in the article. Not on this talk page. And not on your user page either. If there are specific issues with the way specific sources are used as citations for specific content, they can be discussed. But only to the extent that the discussion relates directly to that content. And any such discussions need to take place here. On this talk page, where other people can see them, and contribute. Posting walls of opinionated text elsewhere and expecting people to read through it all isn't the way to resolve anything. And I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of not answering questions you never asked in the first place. I said nothing about anything Rewat may have been accused of, because the topic doesn't seem to have arisen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Inside Peace insert

I appreciate the interventions by Andy the Grump and Faunus concerning the recent insertion about Inside Peace.I hope that the addition of TPRF will resolve Andu the Grump's concern about relevancy. TPRF is one of Prem Rawat's signature initiatives and is featured in the article itself. I also appreciate the citation corrections by Faunus. It will take me some time to become familiar with the system.Richard.reive (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to discuss the issue. As I have just noted in the section immediately above, even ignoring other problems (i.e. citing the film's own website as a source, for a start - which is clearly promotional), it is hard to see how sources which don't mention Rewat at all could be used to justify such content, which was the case with the initial edit. This article isn't about the 'foundation', or what it gets up to, it is about Rawat. The man. The subject of this biography. The HuffPost piece now cited [4] at least mentions Rewat by name, but only in passing. It gives no indication that Rewat participated in any way. And this is in a HuffPost piece which is clearly and unambiguously promoting a film festival where the film in question was being shown. It is not an independent source, capable of demonstrating that the film is of any significance to a Rewat biography. Wikipedia articles need to be based on independent sources actually discussing the subject matter - not on passing mentions selected for no better reason than to pad out an article with vaguely-positive waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has an entry [5] regarding Huffington Post contributors, noting an apparent lack of editorial oversight at the time the relevant piece was written. While this wouldn't in of itself necessarily rule out citing this source entirely, it would seem to confirm that other sources would be needed too, to justify any content concerning the film. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

To be simple and clear: this film is about people in jail who follow the Peace Education Programm which is presented that way: "Each workshop features video excerpts of renowned author Prem Rawat’s inspiring presentations on one of ten themes: Peace, Appreciation, Inner Strength, Self-awareness, Clarity, Understanding, Dignity, Choice, Hope, and Contentment." So, these workshops in prison would simply not exist if Prem Rawat was not giving conference on peace and self-knowledge. It is not necessary that his name is mention many times in an article or a documentary when the link is perfectly clear. --Faunus (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

To be simpler, and clearer: speculation about what would or wouldn't exist in a parallel universe is of no relevance unless the source cited meets Wikipedia criteria as a source. And as I have already noted, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources suggests that it doesn't. It is a promotional piece, written about a film festival which the author himself states elsewhere [6] to have been "lucky enough to be a part of since its inception, in 2008". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You play with Wikipedia rules to justify your position. This film does exist, he had been awarded in festival films. It isn't a fiction, it is a documentary on real people stories and how Peace Education Program help them to better themselves, even in jail, which is a real issue for the society. What is the harm to mention it? The question is not to make a would chapter on it, just mention that this film does exist and had a good reception, even if it was not report so much. If you prefer another source, there is this one Inside Peace Goes Behind Bars At SA's Dominguez State Jail. --Faunus (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not 'playing with Wikipedia rules'. I am, to the best of my ability, stating Wikipedia policy. Policy which I would assume I am far more familiar with than you, given the significant difference in size between your contribution history and mine.

As for the link you provide, once again the source makes no mention of Rewat. This is a biography of Rewat. It is not an article about TPRF, or about the Peace Education Program. A biography should be based on sources directly discussing the subject of the biography. I would have thought that was self-evident, but just in case you have difficultly understanding this, I suggest you read WP:SYN once more: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The San Antonio Current piece says nothing about Rewat, so using it in a Rewat biography in the manner proposed is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Rawat, man, not Rewat. You regularly make the mistake. Prem Rawat is not namely quoted in this article, but the link to his Peace Education Program is without ambiguity. And peace education is at the core of his action. What do you need more? We have already 3 sources for a simple information and you make a big deal out of it. Do you have any doubt that this film is about Prem Rawat's program? Explain. --Faunus (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the spelling mistake. As for my personal doubts or otherwise about the content of the film, they are irrelevant. As is your synthesis. Sources which don't even mention the subject of a biography cannot be cited to make statements about the subject of the biography. And that applies regardless of how much spin you put on them to imply that a every program run by a foundation with (per their 2018 report, the last I can find) yearly revenues of $1.7 million is the personal responsibility of the person the foundation is named after. No evidence has been offered to suggest that Rawat participated in the film. Accordingly, the film says nothing of biographical consequence regarding Rawat. He talks about peace. So, apparently, does the Program. If they base their content on what Rawat has said (which would seem likely) that might be a topic for a hypothetical article on the Program, but including it in this article without a more direct link is simply boosterism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Glastonbury Fayre

The 1971 Glastonbury Fayre at which he spoke (and on the poster for the film has star billing) was the second, not the first. The first was a rather low key affair.Wolstan Dixie (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't currently have access to the sources cited for Rawat attending Glastonbury, but I'll note that our article on the Glastonbury Festival states that the first event, held in 1970, was described as the Pilton Pop, Blues & Folk Festival, and that it was the 1971 one that first carried the name Glastonbury Fair. See also the Festival's own website. [7][8] Maybe the simplest thing to do though, would to be rewrite the sentence in the Rawat article: "His first western address was given in June 1971 at Glastonbury Fair" (or 'Fayre'? Which spelling is correct? Maybe they used both). It doesn't really matter here when the Glastonbury thing started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made the change above, since the date (1971) is clearly correct, and we don't need to go into off-topic specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding content concerning TimelessToday LLC and its app.

A three-part question, relating to the inclusion of content concerning TimelessToday LLC, and an app this company provides, in the Prem Rawat biography:

(a) Should the article lede include content on the company and/or app?

(b) Should the infobox include the claim that Rawat is 'known for' the company and/or the app?

(c) Should the article body include content on the company and/or app?

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

In short, no to (a), no to (b), and probably no to (c), though I'm not entirely decided on the last question, and would be interested to see what others think. To summarise what seems not to be in dispute, the company has offered, for around three and a half years, an app which makes it possible for people to view media content (some free, some paid for) concerning Rawat. The limited third-party souces establish these very minimal facts, and it isn't unreasonable to conclude from looking at the company's own website that the media made accessible via the app does indeed concern Rawat himself, and that it promotes his ideas.

Beyond the basic facts though, the article singularly fails to tell the reader anything of real consequence about the app, despite appearing to claim that it has become a significant part of Rewat's life in the last few years. As it stood, [9] it told the reader, in the lede, that "TimelessToday, LLC, a California-based company for presenting Rawat's message, launched an app in December 2017. As of October 2020 the app has been installed over 100,000 times." And that was more or less all the article had to say on the matter. Content in the article body reaffirmed that the app has been available, and that it has been uploaded. The article fails to cite independent sources offering any sort of analysis, review, or commentary of the app itself, or of the media it makes accessible. In short, the lede tells the reader the app exists, but fails to provide any real indication of why it is of any significance in a biography of Rewat. Article ledes are supposed to summarise material in the body, in due proportion. They aren't intended as a means to impute significance to things not expanded upon later. Inclusion of this material in the lede is undue.

Likewise, the infobox told the reader that Rawat is 'known for' TimelessToday. A bald assertion, entirely unsupported by citation to any third-party evidence to back it up. Infoboxes should contain clearly-verifiable facts, not mere assertions. Inclusion of this statement in the infobox is undue.

I am inclined to question whether the article should even be discussing the company and/or app at all, given the issues raised regarding the lack of any third-party in-depth commentary regarding either. As far as I've been able to determine, such commentary seems not to exist in any obviously-accessible form. We seem to be telling readers that an app released just a few years ago has become a significant aspect to Rawat's life, but can't tell them why. About the only option we seem to be offering, if they want to find out about the app, and why it matters, is to visit the company's website, since we cite no third-party sources. And that to my mind is at least arguably promotional. Possibly a brief mention of the app might be merited, but if so, the article must not imply anything more than can be supported via sources - which seems to come down to the fact that over three and a half years or so, a free app has been installed over 100,000 times. Which isn't much of a statement to make, since it gives no indication of how many people are using it, or to what extent. Or what anybody thinks of the content. What exactly are we telling readers? Very little. What might the readers well think we are implying? Too much. Given the lack of useful sourcing, inclusion of material relating to the LLC and/or app seems undue, if it isn't outright promotional. Wikipedia's mandate doesn't extend to providing free promotion for apps providing paid access to media. At least, not while we can't say anything meaningful about them. And that applies regardless of the motivations of those providing such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's question raises a much larger question that concerns the lack of secondary sources allowing us to present a full biography of Prem Rawat throughout his journey relying only on secondary sources, for the majority of them really outdated. Especially if some are discredited while others are abused. The result is a completely unbalanced biography, emphasizing a distant past which, with hindsight, shows how much Prem Rawat's action was misunderstood in its early days, especially because of his young age and his inexperience with the codes in force in the West.

For detailed information on many of the points that call for a complete rewrite of this bio, see what I have started to review on my own page, User:Faunus. I regularly post excerpts with links on this Talk page. More topics to come, including how some sources are curiously manipulated into saying something other than what they say.

While waiting for a consensus to emerge for such a work of redesign, it does not seem to me unreasonable and contrary to the rules of Wikipedia, to use primary sources to update factual informations, such as the existence of a new medium, TimelessToday. We would at least correct the imbalance that exists in the presentation of past and present organizations. To develop the presentation a bit, we can source it with these two links which give some general information on the purpose of this mobile application and the services it offers in connection with Prem Rawat's message:

https://skelia.com/references/project-cases/timelesstoday/

https://www.youthapps.in/2017/12/prem-rawats-timeless-today-app.html

Below is a proposed text to replace the current one:

In 2017, for the 50th anniversary being a Master, Prem Rawat launch a new website TimelessToday, following in next December by an App developed for Android and iPhone, which offers content including themed events, Livestreams, audios and videos, all focused on his message of peace.

A least, TimelessToday can be mention either in the introduction or in the infobox to give a quick and updated information to the reader.--Faunus (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The proposed text (bolded just above this comment) is pure advertising -- I would remove it on sight from any article. --JBL (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC now expired

THe RfC has now expired, after attracting no comment from anyone beyond the two of us originally involved in the dispute. Clearly this is less than ideal, but since it seems evident that trying to continue this discussion with Faunus alone is likely to result in yet more round-in-circles arguments based on what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of multiple Wikipedia policies (as demonstrated by e.g. by the proposal concerning using "primary sources to update factual informations, such as the existence of a new medium, TimelessToday", and in multiple other places in this talk page), I am instead simply going to state here that if the disputed material relating to the TimelessToday app is restored to the article by Faunus without prior consensus, I will raise the matter at WP:ANI, where I will ask for a topic ban or other sanctions to be put in place until such time as Faunus demonstrates a proper understanding of the policies and purpose of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The limited use of primary sources is well accepted by Wikipedia, especially in a case like this. Quote from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources:

“A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only 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.”

This technical information is useful to inform the reader about the ongoing activities of Prem Rawat. This information has its place in his biography. What rule are you referring to that would contradict this one? --Faunus (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in getting into facile arguments over cherry-picked sentences from policy. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of mobile-guru applications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of remaining content regarding the TimelessToday app

I have now removed the remaining content regarding the TimelessToday app from the article, per WP:PROMOTION: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources... Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

All your recent removals seem appropriate to me. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I held off making most substantive changes while the RfC was still open, but it seems time to move on. There are still substantive issues with the article, in my opinion, and I'd like to address at least a few more, though some clearly require reference to sources I've not got immediate access to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Good day, I have made minor changes to update and simplify the periods in the History section:

1957-1970:to cover the period from Prem Rawat's birth to his decision to take his message beyond India;

1971-1975: to cover the period from Prem Rawat's arrival in the West to his establishment in the United States;

1976-2000: to cover the period of adaptation to a global audience;

2001-present: to focus on major developments, including The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) and the Peace Education Program.

Some sections have been moved to fit in the new categories. No content has been altered.

I hope this meets with my colleagues' approval and welcome their input. Richard.reiveRichard.reive (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, your changes make sense - it was rather a jumble of dates with little logic behind them. There are clearly issues with sourcing in the '2001-present'section, but that can be dealt with later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)\

I have reintroduced an abbreviated entry concerning the forum jointly sponsored by the Tutu Foundation and TPRF. The entry limits itself to mentioning the event, participants, and topics discussed. The source is credible. The entry also respects Wikipedia guidelines, notably NPOV (Neutral Point of View). I trust this is to my colleagues' satisfaction.Richard.reive (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The source cited [10] is unambiguously a press release, and while I see no particular reason to doubt that the event took place, it would would be far preferable to see an external source, not just to avoid any suggestion of promotion, but because the prweb source is clearly describing an event that had yet to happen at the time it was written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have looked for another source, but have yet to find it. Richard.reive (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have found a citation from a primary source. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, "8/7/2021 Sources NOR-Primary, secondary and tertiary sources A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only 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." I propose the following primary source: https://tprf.org/?s=tutu+foundation+&lang=en. To make the primary source clear, I propose adding a final phrase: "according to the official TPRF website.Richard.reive (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia policy is such that third-party sourcing is still needed, per Wikipedia:Independent sources. The question isn't so much as to whether the event took place, but whether it can be demonstrated through third-party coverage that anyone other than the participants considered it significant enough to comment on. Wikipedia articles are not just an indiscriminate collection of 'verifiable events'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME with regard to this article.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography advises that "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only", and while I'm not personally a great fan of using a MoS to determine content on every occasion, this does seem to be a convention generally adhered to both on the English-language Wikipedia, and in more general practice, at least in more formal contexts. Accordingly, I'll ask here whether there is any particular reason why this article should refer to 'Prem Rawat' rather than just 'Rawat' in quite so many places? Clearly there are contexts (e.g. when also discussing other family members) where disambiguation is necessary, but it seems to me that this article has drifted rather far from the norm - and appears to have done so largely as the result of a single edit, back in February 2019. [11] As far as I've been able to determine, this change was never discussed, at least on this talkpage. This clearly isn't the most pressing concern in the article, but it would be nice to know whether rectification would be seen as appropriate, or if there is a particular reason why norms need not apply here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AndyTheGrump. I don't feel strongly about this. You can put in the conventions you like. My opinion is, non-Indians might find some difficulty keeping track of "non-English" names. I think it's just easier on the readers to say "Prem Rawat" since there are three Rawats of some prominence: Hansram, Prempal, and Satpal. But still, edit as you like. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and certainly needs consideration where the context might make just using 'Rawat' ambiguous. Probably best to err on the side of caution where there is any likelihood of misunderstanding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to following the established protocol. Richard.reive (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not got around to this yet, but I'll try to get it done in the next week or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating

I propose updating information to focus more on the last two decades to reflect significant events in Mr. Rawat's work. This shift would bring a more current perspective to the article.

I also propose modifying information from the 70s to more general statements, with links and without eliminating the content. This would help to reduce distraction from increasingly irrelevant details of controversies half a century ago when Mr. Rawat first arrived in the West. Richard.reive (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that would not be at all appropriate, as I have already made clear in discussions here. This article, like any other Wikipedia article, has to reflect the balance of coverage in third-party sources. It seems self-evident to me that the 'controversies' from the 1970s have received far more coverage than Rawat's more recent activities. Indeed, from recent discussions on this talk page, it seems that Rawat is receiving relatively little external attention at all, give difficulties in finding sourcing for more recent events. Wikipedia does not decide what is or isn't 'irrelevant' based on contributor's personal preferences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Richard.reive is right. These controversies are old and have not been relayed subsequently because they are no longer based on anything of its current topicality. Even if they are less numerous, we also have recent secondary sources.

The fact that only one period (the oldest and the shortest) has been well documented is not a reason to break the very spirit of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to Biographies of living persons:

“The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”

All these policies & guidelines are subject to five main principles and the last one is very clear:

“Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.”

I notice that while there is a Policy regarding BLPs, there are surprisingly no specific Guidelines. We could very well propose to create one concerning this specific problem of the imbalance of sources between different periods, as well as to refine the notion of primary and secondary source, in particular with audiovisual documents which bring together personalities from various backgrounds, without conflicts of interest, but who come to support a cause as in the case of the Italian Minister of Justice on Peace Education for example. --Faunus (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well argued! Richard.reive (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Faunus, if you wish to propose fundamental changes to Wikipedia's policies, you will have to do so in the appropriate place: which is absolutely not this article talk page. Until then, this article will have to comply with existing policy, which does not permit partisan whitewashing of well-documented historical events to support contributors personal agendas. Rawat came to public attention due to the events in the 1970s. Events covered in depth in multiple highly-credible sources. Events discussed in academia, as well as the mass media. Such events must be given appropriate coverage in this article. Under existing policy, this is not open to negotiation. Likewise, the requirement for new content to meet existing sourcing policy is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I will make it entirely clear that I consider the edits carried out by Richard.reive today (31 August) to be partisan in multiple respects, and in at least one substantive case to be accompanied by an entirely misleading edit summary: see this specific edit [12] which removes an entire sourced paragraph concerning the wealth of Rawat, and the size of his staff. Parts of that paragraph are indeed repetition of earlier content, but not all, and the removal appears to result in at least one source no longer being cited over the matter. I am not going to revert the article for now, suggesting instead that Richard.reive instead self-reverts, and restores the article to the state it was prior to any edits made today, so we can sort this issue out before it becomes more fractious. If Richard.reive is unwilling to do so, and unwilling to seek agreement before making further substantive edits (which must of course comply with existing policy), it may be necessary to seek further outside input, as it seems pointless to engage in further round-in-circles discussions with people unwilling to accept that Wikipedia articles are based on coverage in external sources, and that significant events and well-sourced commentary are not subject to removal merely because single-issue contributors with an explicitly-stated agenda would prefer to cast the subject of the article in a better light. And I would have to suggest that such outside input might well lead to questions as to whether contributors seemingly more concerned with the image of the article subject than compliance with Wikipedia policy should be permitted to edit the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I can understand your concern. I note, however, that several sentences have been left suggesting that he maintained an "opulent lifestyle" and "lived like a king". The links are also intact for those who wish to delve into the matter. Elaborating on the allegations in another paragraph seems obsessive. As for the size of staff, etc., it now seems irrelevant, especially since significant retrenchment occurred in the mid 70s for reasons mentioned in the text, and no return to large staffing has subsequently been noted in the subsequent 40+ years. Richard.reive (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with consolidating comments on the same subject together. The problem is that you seem to be removing sourced content about events in the past, on the basis that they no longer accord with your personal perceptions of how Rawat's current life should be portrayed. At least, that is the impression I am getting, since you haven't given any indication as to whether you have been checking your edits against the sources being cited. I understand that some are hard to access (I've tried myself, with little success), but when an article cites a source, we need to ensure that it is being cited accurately, with due emphasis on the actual focus of the source being cited. If there is a mismatch between what the sources say and what our article says, it needs to be corrected, obviously - but we can't do that without seeing the sources. If, for example, you replace the words "some ridicule" with "skepticism", that may or not be a legitimate edit, depending on what the source actually says, but it certainly seems questionable to make a change like that without looking first. Do you have access to the sources being cited in the sections you are editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard.reive: I asked a question above which really needs answering if we are to resolve this: Do you have access to the sources being cited in the sections you are editing? As I have noted above, you seem to be suggesting that you have made significant alterations to sourced content not because the source wasn't represented accurately, but because you want the article to "shift focus". And if that is true, what you are doing is quite possibly a violation of Wikipedia policy. If a source says one thing (e.g. "some ridicule") it is a misrepresentation to suggest it says something else (e.g. "skepticism"). They are not synonyms. We absolutely do not cite sources for things they don't say. That is simply dishonest. As I have noted above, I don't have access to many of the sources being cited, so I can't say for sure what they do say, but I will note that most of the content you have been amending has been substantially present in this article for many years, and accordingly suggest that it will presumably have been looked at by people who do have access to sources being cited. Or should have been. If such material isn't properly sourced, then obviously it needs correction. But you cannot either confirm that it needs correction, nor correct it, without reading the source. So again, I will ask, Do you have access to the sources being cited in the sections you are editing? And are your edits based on what the sources being cited actually say? If I don't receive a satisfactory answer within the next few days, I will have no choice but to revert back to an earlier version of the article, since it is self-evidently improper to misrepresent cited sources in order to 'fix' a perceived (or even actual) problem with an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andy,

Thank you for your comments. I take your point, and I do appreciate your concern over authenticity. As time permits, I will check the sources.

To respond to your question, paragraphs concerning events in the 70s appear in places to fixate on sensationalist details. This has the effect of distracting the reader from the ongoing narrative: the evolution of Rawat's work over the last half century. As Wikipedia is a "go-to" reference for many people, including myself, a low-key, simple narrative respects its mission: to communicate essential information without influencing the reader one way or the other. That is the fundamental reason to choose a word like skepticism" over "ridicule"; the former covers a range of negative reactions without the dismissive connotation of the latter.

By way of example, the article on Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, Prem Rawat's master, is sober and concise, as befits an encyclopedia entry. In contrast, the one on Satpal Rawat appears at times obsequious. It should also be noted, in the interest of balance, that no controversy has been skirted or deleted, and no references have been removed.

I hope this helps to come to an understanding in our continuing dialogue. Perhaps we could agree on a compromise, as Wikipedia policy suggests. Richard.reive (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of that is at all acceptable. You have admitted to making substantive changes to sourced content not because the sources were being misrepresented, but because you have a personal disagreement with the tone of this article. Misrepresentation of cited sources is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy. I suggest you restore the article to its previous state immediately. If you are unwilling to do this, I may be obliged to take this issue up elsewhere, since I am not the least bit prepared to continue discussions with someone who refuses to comply with the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy. There are obvious issues with this article. There may well be problems of balance, and maybe elements of 'sensationalism' in some of the sources cited, but they absolutely cannot be rectified through falsification. Restore the article to how it was, and we can discuss this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I attempted to reply to you today, but see no indication that I did so. If not, please let me know and I will address the matter tomorrow. Best,Richard.reive (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On reflection, you have a point. Perhaps the following wording would help: Reaction to his arrival in the United States was mixed. The teen-aged Rawat was seen as too immature to be a religious leader. However, he generated great interest among young adults, who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.

The statement indicates a range of reactions, which the succeeding sentences confirm.

Ia reference has been deleted, I apologize. Please indicate it, and I will restore it.

Best,

Richard.reive (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If a reference has been deleted (typo in the previous comment.) Sorry! Richard.reive (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am not going to continue discussions over this, while the article remains in the state it is. This isn't just about an individual phrase. You have made substantive changes to sourced content in the article, on grounds that are entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. Neither you nor I are entitled to ignore policy in order to 'negotiate' over this. You are going to have to accept that this article has to be based on what such sources actually say about Rawat's past, rather than your own preferences, because that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As I have made clear, I am perfectly fine with changes based on a new assessment of what the sources cited actually say. I am also open to new sources, obviously, provided that meet Wikipedia's requirements. But that is the totality of what needs to be considered here regarding article content. Articles are based on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. So exactly where are the problems that can be resolved without further ado?Richard.reive (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The 'problems' are the series of edits you made to sourced content here [13] in order to suit your own, entirely unsourced, personal 'narrative'. The solution is to restore the article to the state it was in prior to the edits, and then to refer to the sources being cited before editing the article further. I suggest you do so, soon, if you don't want me to do so, and to then take this up elsewhere. This is an encyclopaedic biography. It is not a PR piece for the subject. If the 'narrative', derived from the extensive coverage Rawat received at the time these events, and from the extensive discussion in later academic sources etc doesn't suit your personal preferences, that is your problem, not anyone else's and I am not going to enter into negotiations over edits made contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I will attempt to address your concerns. As I am still relatively new to Wikipedia protocol, I would appreciate any assistance you could render. Richard.reive (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, when I went to the section to undo my editing, a message said there was an editing conflict and reverting had to be done manually. I attempted to follow instruction from the tutorial but now saw no indication of exactly what those edits had been. If you can help, I would appreciate it. RR Richard.reive (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can sort it out. It can get tricky when there have been edits by multiple contributors. I'll probably have to do a copy-paste of the previous version, which works, but needs care as it's easy to mess up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverted

I've now reverted the article to the August 24th version, per the discussion above. Thanks to Richard.reive for agreeing to this, and apologies to Grammarspellchecker, who's edits got reverted in the process - I'll take a quick look to see if they are still valid, and restore them if they are.

As I said above, I'm entirely open to discussing changes in the article, when sources back this up. It is however rather difficult to do this when many of the sources cited aren't easy to get hold of, so it may take a little time. I think the important thing is to discuss anything at all controversial first, and confine other edits to the article to minor stylistic fixes etc - Richard.reive has done a fair bit of this already, and the article looks better for it.

Looking at the article more broadly, I suspect that at least one it has been an ongoing source of difficulty on Wikipedia, beyond the obvious one that so many of those involved having a strong personal perspective (one way or another) on Rawat and his organisations, is that it hasn't always been obvious what this article is actually about. Is the topic just Prem Rawat himself, or is it also about those who have become his followers, and about the many organisations etc he has led, and the things that such organisations may be doing, beyond his own direct involvement? Clearly on cannot write a biography of Rawat without also discussing those he has influenced etc, but at the same time, normal encyclopaedic considerations should probably tend to set limits on how far 'off-topic' a biography should go.

Added to this is the difficulty of handling a biography of a living person where many of the events that brought him to public attention occurred many years ago, and where relatively little of any great substance seems to have been written about his more recent life. I do understand the concerns of those, sympathetic to him, who feel that emphasis on events in say the 1970s affect the balance of the article in negative ways. If this is true, however, I'd have to suggest it is a consequence of two things outside Wikipedia's control. Firstly, it was the events of the 1970s, with all the media hype and Astrodome appearances, that brought Rawat to public attention in the first place, and in my opinion it would do gross disservice to readers to omit all this, or to try to downplay the very mixed reactions that resulted. And second, following on from this, it was the public attention, along with a more general interest in 'new religious movements' of the time, that led to coverage of Rawat and his followers in academic sources etc. If Academia doesn't write on Rawat any more, we can't cite later perspectives on him, which might possibly take a more nuanced perspective, looking back from decades later. And Wikipedia, as an 'anyone can edit' encyclopaedia, has to work from published sources. There really isn't any alternative, other than a total free-for-all which would surely turn this article into a complete mess, of no interest to anyone but the participants. Wikipedia can't fix sourcing problems, and shouldn't try. It is what it is, flaws and all, and this biography is always going to be constrained by the limits of what Wikipedia can legitimately do. Maybe, someday, someone will write a biography of Rawat that does full justice to the man himself, and the events that surround him, but it isn't going to happen here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the very balanced reply!

Perhaps we could collaborate over time in the direction that you suggest.

Best,

Richard Richard.reive (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Media update

The following sentence was inserted in the Media section: In 2021, Hear Yourself appeared on the New York Times Best Sellers List for October 3, 2021. The citation was generated automatically (which I appreciate!).Richard.reive (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

New York Times 'best sellers list'

This source, [14] from the NYT entirely unacceptable as a means to justify inclusion of content on a book written by Rawat. It isn't a review. It says nothing whatsoever about the book. It is advertising copy, per the note at the top of the page: "When you purchase an independently ranked book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.". Accordingly, I am going to remove the recently-added content sourced to the NYT. Find a review, or similar source, and the book may merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Good day Andy,

Hope you are doing well. I notice that the insertion about Hear Yourself has been reverted. Allow me to present my reasons for including it:

1) The English version was launched on September 14 in a number of countries. That is factual.

2) It made the NY Times best seller list on its own. That is also factual and significant since it shows that the book has generated a positive response from an educated reading public. To mention that fact provides context without comment or hype.

What do you think?

Best,

RichardRichard.reive (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The book made number 8 on the NYT 'Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous' best-sellers list, for one week so far. Spelled out in full that seems a lot less impressive. As for how 'educated' the readers are, I have no idea, and I'm at a loss as to how you could possibly know. If the book gets a half-decent review somewhere remotely credible, we can discuss including it. As a general principle, Wikipedia doesn't generally cite sources that have a financial stake in the product they are promoting, and if there is a reason to treat the NYT differently, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could include your revised wording: The book made number 8 on the New York Times best-sellers list on 3 October 2021 in the "Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous category. That would define the event more precisely as you suggest.

Concerning the NYT, I have observed, on the other hand, that its literary section is widely respected. For example, its best seller list is regularly quoted in the Globe and Mail, Canada's national paper. I have never heard that the newspaper has a financial interest in the books it features; indeed, that would undermine its credibility.Richard.reive (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Me again, sorry! Quoting a review of the book that opens up the question of the reviewer's credibility. That is why I prefer to simply mention the book's release and its inclusion on the NYT list. Those two facts bring it to the reader's attention without boosting it. What do you think? Richard.reive (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a complete inversion of the way Wikipedia works. Independent sources determine notability. They determine neutrality. If this book is to merit discussion a Wikipedia article, it will be because an independent source says something meaningful about it. Not because someone wants to bring its existence to readers attention. Find a review. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. In the meantime, I will simply mention that the English version was released on September 14, 2021. Richard.reive (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, citing the publisher's own website doesn't resolve my concerns regarding the need for independent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And apparently the New York Times bestseller list can be gamed. (There are also criticisms that it's simply not accurate.) Because of that I question whether it is a reliable source for anything and should be used much. It might depend on the situation. But here is an article about how Donald Trump Jr had palette loads of books bought on bulk order in order to get on the list. And apparently this is not all that uncommon. And if they can do it, what would stop Prem Rawat's people from doing it? Ethical principles and high-minded moral rectitude, maybe? Hmmmm. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, but for this situation, no, I wouldn't use the New York Times bestseller list in this article. Herostratus (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was vaguely aware that the validity of the NYT list has been questioned. In any case, Rawat's book seems to have dropped off the list again after only a week, which rather tends to suggest that regardless of the merits of the list, Rawat's brief appearance on it isn't really something our readers will likely consider of pressing significance. Which once again leads me to suggest that if it is worth telling our readers about what Rawat has written, we should be doing so - by citing independent reviews. And again suggest that if his books aren't getting reviewed, maybe we shouldn't be publicising them by links to publishers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that. IF we could trust the Times, I think it would be OK to say the book at least bubbled up onto the list for a bit. This shows that it didn't sell like 200 copies. Like, if we have material on a song and it got to #99 on the Billboard list, that would be included maybe. (However, it's all moot because we shouldn't trust the Times on this matter.)

It's not uncommon to have a "Works" section where there's a bare listing of books, even if only one. See for instance the "Works" section at Commander Whitehead. This is how books are generally listed: just filling in a "cite book" template or providing that level of info. Do not link to the publisher, no. The ISBN provides the proof that book exists which the reader can follow up (if there's no ISBN, the book's maybe not notable enough to list).

(IF there's a link to a FREE version of the ENTIRE book, I personally would include that a URL field in the material (the "cite book" template has a field for that), as a service to the reader. But otherwise, no link.)Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've generally assumed that 'works' lists were really only appropriate in biographies where the subject was a writer, an academic, or someone otherwise known to the broader public primarily for their written output. Which doesn't really seem to be true for Rawat. He's written a fair bit, obviously, but apparently without attracting very much notice for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mnmh could be. For my part I personally wouldn't think so, no. It's part of the person's CV. Depends partly on how long the article is. This one's pretty long, 47 kB while Wikipedia:Article size suggests starting to at least think about splitting the article when it gets to 50 kb. Which we're not at yet but we are getting there so we want to be thoughtful of that. Alto adding 150 characters isn't much. Altho every little bit adds up.

Your call, as you guys are engaged in this article and I'm just a driveby watchlister. Herostratus (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

For now, I'll let it stand as is, though I'm not particularly happy with it - there are bigger issues with the article that really need tackling. Not that I'm really sure I've got the means to do so, given that it requires tracking down some very old sources, and checking the extent to which they are being properly cited for things they actually say. And even the newer sources may be being used rather selectively: the article cites Ron Geaves extensively, in a manner that rather disregards the criticism his claims about Rawat have received: see e.g. this review: [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello all! I'm trying to insert an info-box similar to the one in this article, including a photo and some publication data, into the German Wiki-Article. Can the person who has originally made the edit, or anybody who feels experienced with these things, please contact me? If I could copy some data, it would probably save me a lot of labor. Rainer P. (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The German-language Wikipedia doesn't seem to use infoboxes for biographies in the way that we do here. Most biographies seem to only have a photo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)