Misplaced Pages

Talk:Prem Rawat

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rainer P. (talk | contribs) at 11:08, 30 May 2012 (→Lima Interview and RSN, re: Nobel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:08, 30 May 2012 by Rainer P. (talk | contribs) (→Lima Interview and RSN, re: Nobel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSpirituality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPrem Rawat (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat
Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Subpages




Archive
Archives

Archive index
  1. June 2004 – July 2004
  2. July 2004 – July 2004 (1)
  3. July 2004 – July 2004 (2)
  4. July 2004 – August 2004
  5. August 2004 – August 2004 (1)
  6. August 2004 – August 2004 (2)
  7. September 2004 – September 2004 (1)
  8. September 2004 – September 2004 (2)
  9. September 2004 – September 2004 (3)
  10. October 2004 – October 2004
  11. October 2004 – April 2005
  12. June 2005 – August 2005
  13. August 2005 – October 2005
  14. October 2005 – February 2006
  15. February 2006 – March 2006
  16. March 2006 – April 2006
  17. April 2006 – April 2006
  18. April 2006 – May 2006
  19. May 2006 –
  20. July 2006 – September 2006
  21. September 2006 – November 2006
  22. November 2006 – January 2007
  23. January 2007 – March 2007
  24. March 2007 – May 2007
  25. May 2007 – July 2007
  26. July 2007 – October 2007
  27. October 2007 — December 2007
  28. December 2007 — February 2008
  29. February 2008
  30. February 2008 (2)
  31. February – March 2008
  32. March 2008
  33. March 2008
  34. March – April 2008
  35. March – May 2008
  36. May – June 2008
  37. May – August 2008
  38. August – November 2008
  39. November 2008 – January 2009
  40. April 2009
  41. April – July 2009
  42. June 2009 – May 2010
  43. May – June 2010
  44. June – August 2010
  45. August – September 2010
  46. October 2010 – January 2012
  47. January – February 2012
  48. February –

Rejecting Divinity

Our little drive-by earlier today drew my attention to this part of the article (and as an aside, I can't believe we, as a group, have been so meticulous with this article, and yet we still manage to miss some things that don't seem right when it's suddenly drawn to your attention):

A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers.

Has anyone read this article? that's not really what it says, and I'm more surprised because it seems to totally mis-characterize what the reporter said. Here is the actual quote from the article:

Maharaj Ji came across as a real human being. He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor.

When I read that, I think first of all, that he's saying that PR was trying to play down the notion presented by his "staff" (and yes, I realize that "staff" isn't exactly the right word here, so please, use that word to mean only the difference between those charged with organizing the event, and those attending it), not downplaying any ideas held by his audience/followers, but then the article goes on to say things that change the meaning of what the reporter is talking about, and takes this quote into an "out of context state" I think. Within a few sentences, the article goes on to say:

Many people left with the feeling that it had been a "cosmic rip-off" or the embryonic stage of "spiritual fascism." As you've probably heard, Maharaj Ji went to Detroit the next day and got hit in the face with a shaving cream pie by a fellow who felt the whole thing was a fraud. The only fault I can find with this protest, regardless of whether that feeling was substantiated, is that the pie was not edible.

This is not a reporter that's claiming PR eschewed claims of his Divinity, this is an author who is calling the whole show a sham, and that's not the characterization our article portrays at all. I have an idea or two on how to correct this problem, but how about someone else gets the ball rolling, who knows, maybe we can accomplish something here. -- Maelefique 02:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok... well... as I see it, there's only 2 ways to go, we either remove that quote entirely as it's out of context and distorts the author's meaning, as well as using something here that's attempting to prove something that we can see from the source isn't really accurate. Or, we flesh it out more by adding more quotes from the article, or more of a mention on the whole Divine/divine, God/god, problem, which I think is probably the right way to go (sadly, this will probably make the article longer, in spite of what I have recently said, but I don't see a way around it if we follow this route, and I think this is a large enough controversy that it deserves a little space). Which would mean we need some sources to explain more about the Indian sense of god/divinity in general (not a page of quasi-religious mysticism, just a little basic, easy to digest, stuff), I don't have any particular source for that type of general reference. I know that some ppl here have more to do with Indian religious beliefs in general here, are there some non-controversial books that help explain that aspect that we could look at? -- Maelefique 14:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a starting point, the Peace Bomb seems like a good place, I asked this previously, but was ignored, the quote below is hard to hard to claim he isn't saying he's God, he specifically refers to manifesting in a human body, and incarnating as GMJ, that's pretty specific isn't it?

"But when the Lord saw that the troubles... had reached the final point... manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world"

From there it seems he wasn't in any big hurry to discourage that idea for a few years, but gradually felt it was better if he at least quit saying it out loud, even if he didn't correct people necessarily, who had that opinion. Then he moved towards playing it down, and at some point, do we have a nice simple source of him saying "I'm not god?" or something very similar and straightforward? I'm reasonably certain he's not suggesting anything like that now, so I'm trying to make a sort of timeline to work from, collect the pieces, and then shrink the heck out of it to squish it into the article somewhere, if we can come up with something coherent. -- Maelefique 23:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think the East West Journel quote is out of context you can always select something from the rest of his description about Rawat - "Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims, not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is. He spoke in allegories, referring to himself in one of them as a "cute kid" who helped someone find the superman comic that he was looking for. He has a good command of the language and a practiced sense of comic timing. At one point he said that people could search for inner peace other places, but if they didn't find it, "Come back because I've got it." No magic tricks. Simply, if you want peace. I got it." But I think one sentence is enough. Momento (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's too long of a quote, but I don't have a problem keeping part of it in, I like the "out-christ"ing part, but that's only half of what the article has to say, and that skews his article's conclusion even further, then we'd have to add all, or at least an equal part, of that stuff at the end too, otherwise, that's just cherry-picking, which is kind of what we have now, only not quite as blatant as what you're suggesting we add, if you're suggesting we *only* add those bits. -- Maelefique 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the topic is big enough for a small section on its own possibly, something like:

--Divinity/divinity--
There has been some controversy about whether or not Prem Rawat claimed he was God. Initially, his comments, taken from early speeches as a child in India, such as the Peace Bomb, led to this idea. In the Peace Bomb, he stated that "The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world". The differences in context between the Indian view of "Lord" and the more Western/Christian view of "Lord" is often cited as the reason for confusion over the matter . After arriving in the West, Rawat's answers when asked about this seemed only to further encourage his followers that he was, in fact, God, despite the fact that there is no recorded evidence that he clearly said "Yes." to this question. In fact, at a 9000 strong Boston rally in 1973, a reporter stated in reference to Prem Rawat that "He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor", although he also went on to say that "Many people left with the feeling that it had been a "cosmic rip-off" or the embryonic stage of "spiritual fascism."". When asked about it directly, Prem Rawat claimed he was not Divine, but the knowledge he contained was. From the mid-1980s onward, Prem Rawat has dropped his connections with Indian style teachings, and has concentrated on a style of public speaking which is now similar to those of motivational speakers, travelling around the world to spread his message that peace resides within, without reference to the idea that he or his knowledge is Divine.

There is another example from the video, (LOTU), where is is asked the question directly, and he deflects the answer, I didn't include it here because I can't remember the exchange off the top of my head (haven't watched it in years), and it's on videotape, so I would have to hook up my VCR to watch it again, I may do that later if I have time, my recollection of it is that he was asked the question, but answered it only in a way that didn't say yes, and didn't say no either.

This isn't a suggested edit into the article, it's a starting point for discussion, hopefully (probably unrealistically) we can discuss this calmly and maybe come up with a useful edit when we're done. -- Maelefique 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, it is not a knowledge he "contains", but he has the gift of revealing it in the heart of his students, where it has been present all along. It is something, he says, every human being has. This is an essential point. And that is "divine" Knowledge, if you have to use a term for it.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean this sentence, "When asked about it directly, Prem Rawat claimed he was not Divine, but the knowledge he contained was", how would you change it to reflect what you're saying? ( Assuming that my sentence isn't a quote, I thought I had read that exact quote somewhere, but I don't recall what the source was at this moment, just fyi) -- Maelefique 20:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, no wonder it was so fresh in my mind, it's from that East West journal again, the article says "Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims, not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is" -- Maelefique 20:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a matter of basic understanding. If that knowledge is said to be "contained" anywhere, it would be the hearts of human beings. The Master has the gift to "reveal" this knowledge. This is also the way Rawat himself has worded the case innumerably often. Reveal means it's been there all the time, like, say, a forgotten well in your garden. The one who comes and shows you where it is, does not "contain" it. Do you really not see the difference?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand the difference, but that doesn't get us very far unfortunately. I would prefer to use the "reveal" connotation that you would prefer too, however, I don't have a source for that assertion, do you have a source for it? I would think that even a TPRF source for this would be ok, since that would not be unduly self-serving, if it only describes what he says about his role in releasing the Knowledge. Also, if I fall down a forgotten well in my garden, I shall be very unhappy with you... :) -- Maelefique 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)-- Maelefique 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why it has to be revealed ;-) I will look for sources. Help appreciated.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue belongs in the Media section. Juxtaposing what Rawat said at his first events in the west with what the press said. In Ontario 1971 - "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". In London 1971 - "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". In Johannesburg - "People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose". In fact, I propose the following as the second sentence of the Media section - "Despite making it absolutely clear when he first came to the West that he wasn't God, that no human being could be God and that God, as far as he was concerned, was pure and perfect energy that could be personally experienced be anyone, the media falsely claimed that Rawat said he was God". It's long overdue.Momento (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to propose a completely separate edit, please create a separate section for that, otherwise, we end up with one section that just gets waay too long, (as seems to be the case a lot lately). Do you have sources for those quotes? Otherwise they aren't usable, as you know. Thanks. Also, you never responded to my questions above, in case you missed them. But if you're thinking about moving this to the Media section, I wouldn't think that was best, it does seem that not just the media was confused over whether he was or was not claiming to be God, so moving it to the Media section would imply that it was just a case of Media POV only. I think this could be it's only small section due to its relevance across the time period. -- Maelefique 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources for those quotes are DLM publications, so the idea that Rawat claimed to be God is absurd. It's not a matter of some interpretation of theology or philosophy or what others said Rawat said. He was absolutely clear to his followers, God is energy that can be experienced within. Regrettably the media had a different agenda which is why this info belongs in the Media section.Momento (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, please provide the sources for your quotes so we can incorporate those ideas into the edit as well. I'm not sure how you can call the claim "absurd" when I've pasted Rawat's own words here recently stating that:
But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and then manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world.
That sounds an awful lot like "I'm God" to me, I'm not the media, and based on some of the opinions of the ex-premies that edit here, they don't seem so sure either, I don't think they all qualify as "the media" either. How do you explain the quote above? -- Maelefique 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Explain what? It may "sound like God to you" but all I see is Lord, True Saint and True Guru Maharaj Ji.Momento (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess you misunderstood. I see that, and it says "God gave himself a body. God, GMJ, has incarnated", you would have to not understand english to see a possible, and common, understanding of that not to mean "God made himself the mortal, GMJ", but we don't need my interpretation of it, we have his own words, they can stand on their own merits, just like the rest of his words, which pose a great counter-point, as soon as you provide the sources you quoted in your text from above. How long until we can get some of those? -- Maelefique 07:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The London quote is from "Reflections on an Indian Sunrise"i" published in 1973. "The world thinks, people think, God is a man. People think God has ears, nose, teeth, and he rises early in the morning, brushes his teeth, washes out his mouth and he is an old man so he brushes out his beard also. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy, and that is why scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created". The Ontario quote is from "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" published 1973 "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk."Momento (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see "God" written anywhere in the quote you provided.Momento (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Great to see those sources listed, that first one, that's a book? published by? (I've heard of the second one, so I'll track that down, but we'll need page references for both too please). In reference to the quote, it capitalizes the word "Himself", in reference to God, and also says "the Lord saw" Lord is a common synonym for God, especially when giving it Anthropomorphic properties. it also says "he" manifested himself in a human body.
"Lord" may be a synonym for "God" but it actually means "noun - someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler: lord of the sea | lords of the jungle | our lord the king". Very OR to say it only means what you think.Momento (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
From our own article Lord we have:
"Lord" is used as a title of deference for various gods or deities.
Hinduism: In Hindu theology, The Svayam Bhagavan may refer to the concept of the Absolute representation of the monotheistic God. Another name used more commonly used in Hindu theology is Ishvara, meaning "The Lord", the personal god consisting of the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
You may think "Lord" and God" are synonymous but it actually means "noun - someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler: lord of the sea | lords of the jungle | our lord the king". Very OR to say it only means what you think.Momento (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this quote is really confusing, I think we're on much more solid ground showing that he started off with a possible misunderstanding, because of his words and actions, and a gradual rejection of the idea until we get to today where again, I don't think there's any confusion, that he isn't God. Your quotes also fit into that timeline. -- Maelefique 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Rawat said he wasn't God in English in 1971 and he's probably still saying it. If you look at his Indian talks you'll see he drew a very clear distinction between himself and God. Regrettably the western media couldn't help themselves.Momento (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that he said he wasn't God. I just found an example of it myself, I know there are sources for it, but that doesn't change what he said at other times. The western media had nothing to do with the Peace Bomb, it was published in the Divine times/It Is divine (Are those the same magazine that they just changed the title of at some point?). -- Maelefique 08:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what is so special when there is a living person. No need to interpret their words. There are of course interpretations, but there are also the person's actual words. It seems important to consider this, especially when there appears to be a discrepancy. Maybe we can find a formulation for the article that takes account of this.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Rainer. Unless you accept this most basic of PR's teachings you'll always be confused by what follows.Momento (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Rainer, let PR's words speak for themselves. Also, by all the various quotes that are already provided, in what is now being split into two talk sections of similar topic, it seems pretty straightforward that there are quotations to support both positions, and that's what I thought to begin with, none of which has been media quotes yet. Which is why this should not be in the Media section, and should be on it's own, in a Divinity/divinity section, that will cover both media and PR directly, as well as scholars, and possibly anyone else we feel has something important to say, as long as we end up with an NPOV section. -- Maelefique 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no quote that contradicts PR saying "I am not God". And it would be OR to suggest other wise. And it is hardly surprising that an Indian Guru who teaches what he calls "Knowledge of God" would talk a great deal about God and that he considers the whole subject Holy, Divine etc. So talking about his Guru or any Guru as being Holy, Divine etc doesn't imply the Guru is God, on the contrary it is well understood that the sole purpose of a Guru is to connect people with God.Momento (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the following quotes as contradictory to PR saying "I'm not God", as well as confusing to the issue, (which is why I suggested we explain it in the first place):

  1. "Guru Maharaj Ji.The Lord. All-powerful." from The Divine Times 1978 Volume 7, Number 4.
  2. "The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save humankind" - And It Is Divine, July 1973
  3. "The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world" - The Peace Bomb, via The Divine Times
  4. "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji, has brought the same Grace with Him that He brought for us before" - Peace Bomb (note the use of the singular "He" and "Him")
  5. ""Lord of Mercy." Some only say "Lord," some say "God," some say "Lord Christ." Same thing." - Recieve That Truth, 1971, p.27
(Keeping in mind that in Hindu theology, The Svayam Bhagavan may refer to the concept of the Absolute representation of the monotheistic God. Another name used more commonly used in Hindu theology is Ishvara, meaning "The Lord", the personal god consisting of the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva)

I'm not sure how you can keep ignoring quotes like these, as you probably know, there are quite a few more. If you don't want to take my opinion of them (and I'm reasonably sure you don't), we should ask for a neutral opinion at Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases to see if we can resolve this and move forward. Please note, I have not used one quote from "The Media" you keep trying to pin this on. -- Maelefique 02:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

None of them are PR saying "I am God". They are all honorifics praising Guru Maharaj JI. They are common in India, like elephant headed Gods. Even his brother was called "Bal Bhagwan JI"= "Born God". As I said in the Media section, you need a reliable source saying PR said he was God or a quote that says there was confusion. All those quotes demonstrate is the high regard PR and others hold the position of Guru Maharaj JI/Perfect Master etc. and their belief that the Guru can save them. Just like some Roman Catholic thinks praying to a saint can find their lost cat.Momento (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we seem somewhat deadlocked on this issue, I have asked for comments, here. -- Maelefique 06:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote that isn't from Rawat, but quotes from him didn't seem to sway your opinion at all anyway, this is from Melton:

The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p. 143, "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

-- Maelefique 06:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Melton is an excellent source but it doesn't support your claim that PR said he was God. On the contrary it simply confirms what I've been saying - a guru is a manifestation, embodiment, channel, emissary, conduit etc. You can learn more about PR's teachings where that quote is presented here.Momento (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Maelefique, thanks for arranging a seperate space for discussion of this topic. Hopefully it can further an understanding which I think is necessary in order to avoid a senseless battle of quotations here.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Many incorrect information in the section, weekepedia has allowed incorrect information written by people that has strange interpretation , and did not allowed to insert correct information, weekepedia may like the surrealistic expression, and pictoresque description instead then simple and real analitic description of a biografy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.244.78 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your well thought out and expressed opinion of the article that all the editors here have spent years working on to make it what it is today. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who looks forward to working with you in the future to improve it even further when your hard work and research is added to our own to make an even better article. -- Maelefique 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have seen worse. It takes a while to understand the way WP ticks, where understanding is not necessarily the prime objective. There are those who understand well, but don't formulate well, an vice versa. Maybe understanding and linguistic skill are in a way independent variables. --Rainer P. (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think they are independent too, but I'd point you to WP:COMPETENT, and let you draw your own conclusion. -- Maelefique 15:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, of course. Maelefique, I've lost the link to our current mediation, can you help out? Thanks.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You haven't missed anything, they're still dealing with a procedural issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_6 -- Maelefique 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's only the request page, and I somehow can't find the actual mediation activities.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Media section

As per Maelefique there has been confusion about what Rawat said about God in his talks and what others said he said. Since Rawat has clearly stated that he, and in fact no human being, can be God then the misunderstanding has come from people misquoting Rawat and that is amply demonstrated in the media. Therefor I propose inserting something like the following sentence as the second sentence in the media section - "Despite making it absolutely clear that he wasn't God and that no human being could be God and that God, as far as he was concerned, was pure and perfect energy, the media falsely claimed that Rawat suggested he was God in numerous articles." Sources to come.Momento (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Reader,

By the grace of Almighty Lord, we bring you the magazine And It Is Divine. You will find this magazine very different from others, because it shows not only the suffering of the world, but also a way out for all humanity. There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him. Divine Light Mission wants to bring world peace by sharing the Knowledge which is within us by the grace of Almighty Lord. In this magazine, we hope to give information about the peace which lives within us, which Guru Maharaj Ji reveals. Sant Ji Maharaj 

   (Guru Maharaj Ji's preface
   for the DLM magazine 'And It Is Divine'
   published in the 70's and early 80's)

no further comment necessary Surdas (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the magazine is named "And IT is divine", and not And HE is divine? For my taste it is a bit demagogic and phariseean, and not very encyclopedian, to capitalize on people's mainstream ignorance in these matters and insinuate blasphemy ("he said Jehovah!"), when it is only a lack of understanding. That magazine was published in an early stadium of Rawat's mission, when a lot of Indian culture still reflected in those publications and elsewhere around Rawat. I am sure we had this discussed at length on these pages in the past and don't hopefully need to go through it all over again.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly Rainer. And please also note that PR says "within US by the grace of Almighty Lord" - clearly distancing himself from Almighty Lord.Momento (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't consider a DLM publication to be "the media" that this section was supposed to be about. Also, if Rawat said he wasn't God, that does not mean that he never said he was God, and if we have quotes that show both things, then both sides of that should be covered, not just one, that would clearly be a POV submission, especially if we have his own words, quoted from his own literature. -- Maelefique 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. We are talking only about whether PR said he was "God" and not anything else. We have definitive denials, I'll see if I can find mainstream media suggesting he is or said he was God to verify the proposed sentence.Momento (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Your proposed sentence has basic flaws, it assumes he never contradicted himself (See previous section), and so far, I have not seen any sources that show "the Media" falsely claiming he was God (but I'm interested to see them before making up my mind on that part). Until those issues are dealt with, as well as the issue in the previous section about Divinity/divinity, I don't see how I can support your sentence as accurate. POV issues abound in the language proposed as well, and is in fact refuted by "And It Is Divine" again, as quoted to you above, "There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form", that is contradictory to your proposed edit that would have us insert "no human being could be God" into the article. -- Maelefique 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote above "I'll see if I can find mainstream media suggesting he is or said he was God to verify the proposed sentence". And a basic tenet of virtually every religion is that God, the Almighty is omnipresent and infinite, so everything is God. And this Almighty Power created or manifested everything including human being and gurus. So to say "there has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form' is a basic for religion. But the point of that phrase is not that God is and does everything but that God manifests a Guru.Momento (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:SYN, take your pick, either way, that's not a legitimate argument based on those two policies. As Rainer said, and I said, above, let PR's words speak for themselves, people can make up their own minds. -- Maelefique 03:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that the preface to AIID doesn't suggest PR is saying he's God. In fact, I don't think you'll find him saying it. But you need to come up with a decent source that says that there was confusion about whether PR said he was God rather than your opinion that there was confusion and trying to bend a quote to your purpose.Momento (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we seem somewhat deadlocked on this issue, I have asked for comments, here. -- Maelefique 06:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, Maelefique. There are so many Prem Rawat quotes that demonstrate quite well Rawat's belief in his own divinity, i.e., Guru Maharaj Ji is greater than God, the greatest incarnation of God to manifest in a body on earth, greater than Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, and someone that people of the world ought to bow down to and worship. Quote mining has never been successful on this article. If you would like, I'd be happy cut and paste here dozens and dozens of examples of Rawat demonstrating his belief in his own divinity, as well as the beliefs of followers in Rawat's divinity. Best wishes... Sylviecyn (talk)
I am just following the process, it seems quite obvious to me, and to Rainer (based on his recent submission to the request for comments board) that there is quite a lot of confusion over the matter of whether he claimed to be God or not, and that's my point. Others here seem to feel there's no confusion whatsoever. Even the book that was referenced by Momento earlier "who is GMJ?" asks the question "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?" so it seems like something that should be in the article. To put in in the article, first we have to discuss sources. I think we've now tried that, I've presented my side of the issue, Momento doesn't agree. That's ok. It's still a process. Since it doesn't appear that there's any movement of opinions, I've requested non-formal help in the form of the RFC for these sections. After that, it will either have more of a consensus, that would allow us to craft an actual edit for the article (such as the one I suggested in the previous section), or consensus will say this isn't correct, in which case, maybe I've misunderstood the situation. I guess we'll wait and see what happens next. -- Maelefique 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The "confusion" exercise is WP:OR. It is irrelevant if an editor is confused, what is required is that a reliable source says there was "confusion". And none of our 141 reliable sources mention it. Sylviecyn's right, quote mining will never work. And it doesn't help if you cannot tell the difference between being "Divine" and being "God". They are entirely different.Momento (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. Therefore I've taken the conversation elsewhere for uninvolved opinions. Please don't confuse the issue further by claiming I only quoted him saying he was Divine. I have, in fact, not presented a single instance of that. Please don't tell me you don't understand the similarity between "The Lord" (caps are his), and "God". To be helpful, I will Quote Rawat again for you, ""Lord of Mercy." Some only say "Lord," some say "God," some say "Lord Christ." Same thing" If you can't understand why that might confuse the average wiki-reader on this point then it's probably time for formal mediation on this. -- Maelefique 23:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Geaves says something about it in his papers. I will take some time though to look. Anybody interested in a .pdf-copy or two of a Geaves's paper?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I would certainly like to read some work by Geaves on that issue, but I think it's getting away from my point, which is that there is confusion as to what PR said/meant, and that the situation has gone away over time as he no longer refers to the issue in his public discourses. I'm not sure Geaves is going to say anything about that specific issue. -- Maelefique 01:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, either, but I would not be amazed if he had. I have tried to contact Prof. Geaves on Facebook, asking him to possibly point out a corresponding statement in his publications or in another RS, as he could maybe save us a lot of reading time, but he has not responded yet.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)



Here are a few "God" claims by the media -
Guru, 14, takes all

By Jill Robertson Sunday Mirror, November 1972 Shinding by jet for a fat-faced 'God' TONIGHT 350 British disciples of a fourteen-year-old Indian "god," Guru Maharaj Ji, leave London on an astonishing jet age pilgrimage to Delhi.

"Guru Ji Superstar

When the jet containing the adolescent living God and 350 disciples touched down in India,.

"Nothing tatty" for boy Guru

The "boy god" leader of the Divine Light Mission bought a 20,000 pound new car yesterday but was not shy about being photographed in it.

Why '''a God kept me waiting'''

By the Rev. John Lambert Vicar of Cuffley, Herts. WHEN THIS poor parson went to meet God he tried to bunk out of the back door.

The Guru Business

by Kushwant Singh

The New York Times, April 8, 1973 Kushwant Singh is the editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India BOMBAY. The Delhi headquarters of the Divine Light Mission is like a fortress: an 8-foot-high wall with an iron-grilled gate encloses a courtyard and a complex of buildings consisting of offices, reception rooms, kitchen, refectory, dormitories, a temple and the residential Suite of Balyogeshwar, the Child God. -

'''The 'boy god'''' with a taste for ice cream...

and the good things of life Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21

Guru Keeps Track Of Subjects With Computer

GREAT BEND TRIBUNE, Great Bend, Kansas Sunday, September 23, 1973 EDITOR's NOTE: To a swelling number of followers, Guru Maharaj Ji is the "Perfect Master". Some even call him God. But to others, he is a pudgy, 15-year-old business titan who processes his disciples through a personnel department and keeps track of them with a computer. Here is a look at the guru and his mushrooming missionary corporation.

THE GURU WHO MINDS HIS MOTHER

By MALCOLM N. CARTER Associated Press Page A 6 THE STARS AND STRIPES Sunday, November 4, 1973 THEN CAME the guru with a promised path to inner serenity and an answer to life's great questions. To his fervid followers, he is God himself.

Momento (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


So, what? (The above edit is not signed. It does not come from me! Please round that out)--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Can't you remember Rawat teaching you he was God? Why not speak about it honestly? I was there & remember! It's all perfectly simple...Prem Rawat has always spoken out of both sides of his mouth about his divine authority as is well described by Sophie Collier in 'Soul Rush'. His more 'fervid followers' (mentioned above) have always seen him as 'The Lord' but don't want to admit that this is what Rawat has essentially taught them. If Rawat did not believe he was God then why else would he order ('give Agya to' was the terminology used) followers to sing to him every day "Creator, Preserver, Destroyer Bow their heads and pray to You All bow and pray to You Scriptures sing Your glory Heaveny hosts sing Your praises Your virtues are ever true Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev" etc. Arti. Why else would he NEVER deny, or discourage it and constantly encourage his instructors to perpetrate the idea he was the Lord?

All this apologetic talk suggesting Rawat never claimed he was God is only from people who are simply afraid that their Lord will be led away and crucified like the Lord Jesus whom most of them think he is the modern equivalent (or superior) of. Oh..and all this talk about Rawat wasn't aware of the Christian interpretation of his Indiany words etc is extremely dubious. Why? Because Rawat went to a Catholic school, was surrounded by people from the Christian tradition etc. Also I for one probably won't be too impressed with Professor Geaves' opinions on the matter. He is a famous follower & (IMHO) Rawat apologist who appears on Rawat promo videos etc. PatW (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Emotional stress reduces the power of discrimination. Still you were lucky to correct the first version of your entry, probably feeling the dreaded Blade of the Northern Light hovering above your head... Maybe you could even manage to be constructive.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It is specious for anyone to suggest that because Prem Rawat never said the words "'I am God," that it logically follows that he never claims to be Divine (capital "D"). To do so is a bastardization and blantant revision of the true history of Prem Rawat's life, as well as the history of Prem Rawat's cult/new religious movement, and especially to his followers. After all, without all those premies who still worship Prem Rawat to this day (and he allows them to do so without denials) Prem Rawat wouldn't warrant a page on Misplaced Pages. It's a fairy tale for anyone to state categorically that Prem Rawat didn't say x = "I am God," therefore y = "Rawat always denied he was God, Lord, Jesus, etc." It simply didn't happen that way and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. This proposal is a red herring and it ought to be tossed out because it stinks to high heaven. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You could see that as one reason we're working our way through mediation on this topic now. These things take time. It's been completely left out of the article for years, so I don't see any reason to rush the process along now. -- Maelefique 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not only did he ever say: I am God, but he has explicitely stated: I am not God, and that is really well sourced. That's why it is treated in the article as it is. BTW "bastardization", "blatant revision", "stinks to heaven" - doesn't that somehow counteract our aspiration to more civility and constructiveness on this page? --Rainer P. (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
My point is that it's also really well-sourced that Rawat claimed divinity, just not in the literal way Momento is adamant about. Moreover, I don't see the importance of pointing out in this article (or anywhere) that someone called Prem Rawat never said "I am not God." Why is that even necessary? I find it odd, don't you? Isn't it like a non-denial, denial? (Harking back to the Woodward/Bernstein days.) My apologies for being hyperbolic. But, frankly, reading this talk page has been trying my patience. This is not a black and white issue. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredible but funny discussions that remind me of the Middle Ages theological question of how many angels could fit in the point of a needle. If anti-Prem editors had learned yoga all this talk page would be different or unneccesary. When will some understand and/or accept that God is energy and everything and every one is God because every one and everything is energy? And that the only different between all realised yogis for thousands of years and the rest of us is that they finally experienced it in Samadhi and remembered it, and we still haven't? But as a passtime, I still find this talk page more interesting and funnier than cross-word puzzels, so if you enjoy it, carry on :-) --PremieLover (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll restrain my hilarious answer to merely repeating what you should have read above:
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.
-- Maelefique 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hunga Dunga

It's gone remarkably quiet around here. Wassup? Meantime we can add to the reference books that variously describe Prem Rawat either as denying being God or strongly suggesting that he was. In the linked excerpts the author rather hilariously describes the 16 year old Rawat in an 'I am not God' mood. I agree with the person that uploaded this excerpt that the 'promises' made in the Knowledge Session are historically incorrect as I personally was 'revealed Rawat's Knowledge' in 1974 and am quite certain that the vows described did not exist until quite a bit later. I see the book is available on Amazon. PatW (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Please remove your link to a self published site the violates BLP about a self published book that cannot be used as a source.Momento (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your question Pat, I think we're all waiting for the mediation to start (was supposed to have started already).-- Maelefique 23:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
On Amazon it says "Publisher: Dog Ear Publishing (March 16, 2009) ISBN-10: 1598587374" And it has good reviews to boot. What makes this "self-published"? Anyway isn't "Peace is Possible" self-published?PatW (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
As "Dog Ear Publishing" describes itself on its home page "Self Publishing that actually makes sense". And please remove the link.00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If you feel strongly why don't you remove it? Does it seriously bother anyone for goodness sake? And haven't you got anything better to do than constantly demand that all links to anything other than Rawat promotional stuff be removed? It seems pretty interesting and relevant to me. PatW (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed it.Momento (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems sinister and Orwellian if we can't even discuss these things openly. Momento's removed the link and the name of the book. It's called 'Hunga Dunga' - Confessions of An Unapologetic Hippie by Phil Polizato if anyone's interested. And, despite the inaccuracies I noticed, it mostly rings true - also it's a bit of light relief. I fail to see why we can't discuss or examine the many books that have been written that cover people's experiences around Rawat. It's not even as if the book slanders the subject in any way. Maybe it doesn't qualify as a source but I ask again - why would "Peace is Possible" not, by the same token, be classed as self-published? It would seem that book was essentially commissioned by Prem Rawat's people. Or is that OK or something? Seems crazy to me if so. PatW (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a forum where you can discuss Rawat but as it says at the top of the talk page "This is not a forum for discussing Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely we can discuss sources about Rawat here, without question that is totally fine. However, Hunga Dunga says on the copyright page "This is a work of pure fiction...". Ergo, not a source we can use unfortunately. And that's the only reason I can see why this book is not in the same category as PIP or Soul Rush. If not for that, I didn't see any reason why we wouldn't be considering this as a source. -- Maelefique 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

D'you hear that Momento? It's OK to discuss these sources. Can you chill out a bit on this topic? Now... Maelefique, this 'pure fiction' bit is indeed rather terminal I agree. I tend to think it is not in fact pure fiction (the descriptions are too accurate on the whole) however I reckon he's said that to cover himself.PatW (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you there Pat, however, I would never let any Pro-Rawat information into the article that claimed it was fiction either (insert your own joke here). -- Maelefique 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we can discuss whether a source is reliable or not but if the conclusion is that the source is unreliable then that's where the discussion ends. "Hunga Dunga" is self published and therefore is not a reliable source.Momento (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
For you maybe the discussion ends...that's fine...we'll discuss as we please thank you. Don't you think you might be taking this Prem Rawat stuff a little toooo seriously? I suppose if he is God then we should be always VERY serious. Oops sorry...PatW (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If the only problem with Hunga Dunga was that it is self-published, it may be reliable to use as a source. That is not why we cannot use it here. There is no moderator here that decides when discussion is over. However, anyone here is welcome to stop talking when they feel they have nothing else to say on a topic. -- Maelefique 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OR noticeboard

Since it's article related, I thought I'd just let everyone know about Momento's clear and concise question at the OR board, here. (Sorry, had to strike out concise since its definition calls it "brief but comprehensive", and clearly, it wasn't). Just an FYI, please don't flood that page with additional comments if you don't really feel you have to. -- Maelefique 16:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Momento is desperate to argue someone wrong over some minutiae so as to distract from the clear picture that emerges from the sum of sources which state quite clearly that Maharaji encouraged people to believe he was God when they were prepared to buy into that belief, whilst on the other hand, he denied it to the press. Momento's done it many times before and he's doing it now - filibustering to disrupt communal progress. I hope Arbcom see through this unwelcome habit and put a stop to it.PatW (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite possibly. Presumably, I've got another 40 years or so in me, some processes take longer than others, I'm not trying to rush, I just want the record to be accurate, however long that takes. -- Maelefique 00:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Melton: "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God". Maelefique, what is the "other half of the sentence" you are mentioning? Because I think, Momento is plainly right in stating that the quote does not support the statement, that Rawat had wanted to be be venerated as God to begin with. This is only one (and a biased) way to read it, and logically IMO an undue conclusion, especially, when Rawat systematically dismissed that notion. The quote can be read, that a drawback had been dealt with, as soon as the evolution of students' conciousness allowed. When Rawat appeared on the scene, people certainly believed all kinds of things, as they did not have much experience, neither with the Knowledge nor with God. Rawat was and is not in the believing business, he never encouraged nor discouraged people in believing anything, but to find out and know for themselves. This is the meaning of the Collier quote IMO. He is just not into reinforcing dogma, either which way. This makes it hard for religious minded people to nail him domn on such issues, as we are witnessing now. He is not being cunning or evasive, but rather antidogmatic. A lot of times he spoke against people's disposition to believe things, just because they have been said. There are no "two sides of his mouth", there is only a possible irritation in the minds of people who want to believe - because that is so much easier than to practice the Knowledge. Actually it is not a weakness, but a forte of his teachings. Now I am aware that it might be hard to substantiate this complex matter from secondary sources like Vogue or Rolling Stone, but the Melton quote seems to deliberately permit differing readings and should not be narrowed down here.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Without getting into a needless discussion here, since it's going to ArbCom anyway, as the editor there said, it's a straw man argument, since it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. However, he only gave half of half of Melton's quote. There was a preceding sentence, as well as another separate mention further along in the article, which you can easily see as one of the 18 sources I listed (Melton is the first and second sources) at the MedCom case. And you have a basic misunderstanding, I'm not the one trying to narrow it down, I want to include both views, Momento only seems to want 1 view, I don't agree with that option, I think it violates WP:NPOV that states that all views from reliable sources should be presented. -- Maelefique 04:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Eggzactly. We should present all views. Can't be fairer than that.PatW (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's have a neutrality contest.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's start by saying all those that are, or used to be, adherents of Rawat are disqualified...oh wait, that only leaves me ..ok...I guess that contest idea wasn't a good one. This is exactly what I was talking about above, what's the point of that? I see the uninvolved editor at OR/N has further clarified his comments as well, it seems clear to me that the question was designed to give back only one answer, which would then be used to prove a completely different point, and that's not really ok, is it Rainer? FYI, in case you're not familiar, or missed it above, I linked straw man so you can see why that's wrong. -- Maelefique 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean neutrality by history, but by actual behaviour. I guess, there is no such thing as neutrality by history. Seems more like a matter of personal disposition to me. You can not just rely on your history. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody can try to do their best every day, more than just indulging in old hang-ups. Analyzing quotes can lead to differing results, it depends a lot on the operating level of one's conciousness. Emotional imbalance caused by pressure, fear, anger, vengeance, fury, dogmatism, cantankerousness, arrogance and such harm everybody's judgement, no matter what one's personal legend is. Mental balance helps in most cases. So let's be patient. After all we are a team of complete strangers to each other, working globally on an ambitious project, which I find in itself fascinating.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

your comments have something similar with PremieLovers last contributions on the talkpage and i agree wir Maelefiques answer to it Surdas (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Surdas, here's a suggestion from your own user talk page, I could not have said it better: "Thanks for giving your input at talk:Prem Rawat. For the future, I'd like to suggest that it's best to avoid making even impersonal remarks about Rawat's followers or other Misplaced Pages editors, at least on article talk pages. Keeping discussions focused on the topics rather than the personalities seems to work well. (Of course I don't always follow my own advice, but I usually regret it when I don't). Will Beback talk 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)"--Rainer P. (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok kids, break it up. -- Maelefique 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

okok i leave the last word to the schoolmasterish reply Surdas (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Lima interview

How do you appraise this interview as a source? http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/ --Rainer P. (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to use it as a source for, what would you suggest we use that interview to support? Also, I notice it's mentioned here, where it says "Written by the WOPG Editorial Team", that doesn't sound particularly non-partisan to me. Why do you think this interview might be notable? -- Maelefique 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is primarily accessible on the public tv-corporation's website (willax tv), not on youtube. The fact that TPRF mentions it, does not make it unreliable. Why should they not? I have not yet made my mind up what to use it for, want to make sure it can be used as a source at all, after the long discussion we had over Italian tv-stations. One statement could perhaps be: Rawat has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize, which I learned first from the interview, see part 2, at 2:40.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not inherently not ok, it depends on who uploaded it. No, the fact that TPRF mentions it, does not make it unreliable, I didn't say that. I was indicating that if this interview was written by WOPG, and just performed by Rawat and the interviewer, that would fall under WP:SPS, and it fails to meet those criteria, particularly because of the Nobel prize statement. (If that's the case). I saw a recent discussion here at WP:RSN about the Nobel Prize, and apparently (and you can confirm this from their website if you like), Nobel doesn't release the list of nominees for 50 years after the nomination. So I don't think we can use that claim unless you can somehow prove it another way. Rawat saying so is not a reliable source for that claim under WP rules (WP:V, WP:SPS, for a start). I'm not sure what else we can use this video for, we can say he was interviewed, it may be able to support some thinking of his (although that may go more towards the "teachings" article), but I don't see much notable here, so without knowing what you think it supports, I'm not sure what use it is. Here is the link to the RSN discussion, and here is the link to the Nobel site where it says:
Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years..
and
Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.
(from a grammatical point of view someone should tell them for consistency, it should either be "50", or "fifty" on their website, not both!). -- Maelefique 14:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I just googled "willax TV look who's talking" (no quotes), to see who else has been interviewed, and I cannot see a single link on the front page that isn't about Prem Rawat, or from Prem Rawat. That doesn't bode well for notability. -- Maelefique 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The only name I can find on the site (willax) to try and lend some credence/authority to their notability is Gilberto Hume, who unfortunately comes up in this article. I know latin politics/news/whatever is a little different than what I'm used to, but that does *not* seem like an ok thing to do (he didn't do it) or endorse (it looks like he's endorsing it to me, he certainly isn't condemning it). What would happen in your country if someone handed a politician a fake bomb? Would you say that was responsible journalism? I'm going to stop trying to find ways we can include this for now, because the more I try and find something, the more it seems to swing the opposite direction. -- Maelefique 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rawat did not mention that nomination, but his talk host Cecilia Valenzuela did. He did not do much to expand on the issue. She seems to be a notable personality on Peruvian TV, and her talk show seems to be popular; see her Spanish WP-article. I see no connection to your fake-bomb-story. And the idea, that TPRF writes Rawat's interview is absurd, I think even contractors will agree with me. Concerning Nobel-Prize-nominations, I understand that merely the Noble Prize Committee in Norway is obliged to keep the nomenees' names secret for 50 years, but the nominating parties are free to publish their nominations right away. You cannot nominate yourself. Some appropriate personage has to. So we already know now that Bradley Manning has been nominated (the guy who faces trial for channeling US-documents to Wikileaks), as well as Bill Clinton, Julia Timoschenko, Helmut Kohl and a lot more. It seems to be politically intended to have the nominees' names public, and whoever nominated Rawat has no reason to keep it a secret, neither has Misplaced Pages.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rawat was "interviewed" by 'Leaders Magazine' and this was similarly cited by premies as a reliable source. I rang the magazine to find out if it was for real. To my surprise, I was put through to the CEO who was highly irate and said that he was furious with the subordinate who'd accepted the so-called 'interview' which had in fact been pre-written by Rawat's publicity people - who'd paid for it to appear in the magazine as if it were a bona fide piece of editorial. He gave me the impression that it was an embarrassing breach/corruption of the magazine's code of ethics that would not happen again under his watch. What if it turns out this is the same sort of scam? Show me a single interview which isn't entirely flattering towards Rawat. One where the questions aren't couched in obsequious flattery. My guess is the interviewer is a follower or there was money involved. Nobody in the real world get's this kind of easy ride in real interviews. It's so fake. I was even talking to a follower last night who entirely agreed. He also pointed out that all the people in the audience at some political thing in Italy (he was watching a video on WPOG site) were pretty much all premies as far as he could see. Can you wonder that we have some skepticism about this all being responsible journalism? PatW (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Rainer, you say the host mentioned the Nobel prize, not Rawat. Do you think she knew about it, and he didn't? Where do you think she got that info? Do you really not understand why I showed you the fake bomb story, from the only name attached to that website, in terms of its credibility? Yes, it's true, that nominated parties can announce they were nominated, but that's a pretty exceptional claim, now you'd have to prove it from a reliable source, Rawat isn't one for this, do you have another? The idea that TPRF writes his interviews is actually a standard practice among many business types, it's not absurd at all. I can present you with 50 examples if you'd like, none of which would prove that this interview was scripted, but all would prove it's not absurd. "Whoever nominated Rawat" is not an RS source, obviously. At least, until they come forward and announce themselves as the nominators, and then we can look at their credentials. While what PatW has said above all falls under the WP:OR banner (dang, where's Momento when we need him!) if he was trying to introduce it into the article, as a general indicator, it's yet another example of how common paid interviews are. Have you not even seen those infomercials that look like talk shows? Who do you think pays for those? (Look up Kevin Trudeau, and Brokered programming). Also, I friends who are realtors, they pay 2,000.00 and they get a 5 page profile written up about them in "Success!" magazine, it looks legit, until you find out anyone can do it. Again, very common, the opposite of absurd. Or are you saying that it's only absurd for Rawat to do it? (In which case I have some follow-up questions for you). I wish that type of programming/advertising/interviewing was absurd, but at least in North America, it's common. -- Maelefique 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, of course he knew, that's what I suppose. And I also suppose that the interview's course may have been in some way premeditated to give Rawat a maximum chance to bring over his own message, else he would not have granted it. The people who are qualified to nominate him have probably not done so behind his back, and maybe several people were involved, who knows. There seems to be no solid source for that, but there never is. Perhaps Rawat and Cecilia had it arranged so that she would ask the question, because it looks much better than he saying, BTW I have been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize - who knows. I would have done it like this. That does not make it a fake. I also suppose this is more or less common practice in news business. And I suppose, willax-tv had a lot of additional viewing rate by this interview, deducted from Google reactions and were not paid except by their advertisers. The Leaders interview was a different story. This here was on a stop in Lima, without much time for editing. Cecilia mentioned the previous Sao Paolo event. I did not have the impression that Cecilia was a follower of Rawat, but did a suitable professional job - that is, if you do not narrow yourself down to the obsessive presupposition that Rawat is a fraud and needs to get the mask torn from his fraudulent face. All that I find not absurd. It's absurd to believe that TPRF writes Rawat's video-interviews. And he himself does not have to pretend that he's Prem Rawat. So, o.k. if you play the advocatus diaboli, you do that well and we may have to work on this.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't think Rawat's claim that he is a Nobel nominee is fake. I believe that WP rules make it impossible to prove to WP's standards, and therefore is not usable. That's all. I don't know anything about the "Leaders" interview, this is the first I've heard of it. I don't think Rawat is a fraud either. I think he has changed his methods over the years, but doesn't want to talk about that. I think it's reasonable to believe that TPRF at the *very* least vets interview requests, and lays down what topics may and may not be talked about. I think it would be absurd not to think that, given his past, but that's only my opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else of that. I thought Cecilia did a good job too, but I think the fact remains that the source for his nomination at this point is himself, and that's not RS. If we get a better source, I'll look at that too. Finally, I like the sound of that, the latin is much catchier than the basic "devil's advocate". -- Maelefique 00:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's some history on the interviewer. Clearly not the sort that could be bought.Momento (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody translate this? As far as i can understand it shakes her credibility a bit http://aeronoticias.com.pe/noticiero/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13511:con-escasa-credibilidad-cecilia-valenzuela-opina-sobre-la-lid-flores-villaran&catid=47&Itemid=201. Doesn,t mean that we should believe evrything in the papers but ......Surdas (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's put aside her credibility for a moment, because I'm not sure it's relevant. She's obviously not a source for saying he has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Is there anything else that anyone would like to put into the article that this is a source for? I didn't see a lot of information in this interview, other than him talking about peace isn't the absence of war, etc. Is there a specific edit this is a source for? If we don't have that, we don't really need to discuss this interview at all. -- Maelefique 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Maelefique. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why can we not add a sentence like "In her periodic talkshow Mira Quién Habla („Look who’s talking”), award-winning journalist Cecilia Valenzuela from the Peruvian TV channel Willax TV interviewed Rawat and indicated his nomination for the Noble Peace Prize". It is allocatable, notable and verifiable. I don't see why it should be obvious that she can't be a source for that. Maybe there will never be a better source.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Three reasons:
  1. There will absolutely positively be a better source, in 50 years, when Nobel releases their list
  2. There could be a better source sooner if the nominator steps forward and is found to be RS for the claim
  3. It's an exceptional claim, she is not an exceptional source for it (which is needed per policy), I can see no reason why should would be RS for this claim
However, I'm totally in support of this exact question "Is this video (link here, at the 2:40 mark of the second video) a reliable source for the claim that Prem Rawat has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?" posted at WP:RSN. If they say it's a reliable source, I will change my opinion on the RS status of this. --174.1.176.26 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

O.k., we'll see in 50 years. Empirically nominators seem to not habitually step foreward. If the source was good enough for her to publicise the claim, and if she is valued as RS, what's the problem? But let's hear WP:RSN on the subject, thank you for your offer. Please give them the web-address http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/ --Rainer P. (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lima Interview and RSN, re: Nobel

Your link is the page that scrolls with new news, I've used http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/entrevistas/prem-rawat-busquemos-la-paz-en-nuestro-interior/ instead, as it's a static link. RSN thread is here.

I understand that the RSN estimates the source as not qualified enough for this statement pretty cohesively, and I agree to drop the issue, unless better sources turn up.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Prem Rawat Add topic