Talk:The Prem Rawat Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Prem Rawat Foundation article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old comments

I have added some third-party sources and converted all refs to the {{cite web}} format. More information could be added from the Guidestar website, if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TPRF logo.gif

Image:TPRF logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I don't see any assertion of notability for this organization. It hasn't been the subject of a significant profile by a 3rd-party source, or any other sign of notabilty tnat I can see. The few reports appear to be reprinted press releases. It's assets are under $2 million, which makes it extremely small compared to other charitable foundations. It has no paid staff. Is there more that could be said about this group? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(it is not a "group", Will) The fact that it is a small non-profit, does not mean that it does not meet notability guidelines. Here is another source, this one from the World Food Programme [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of articles of small non-profit/charitable organizations in WP. See Category:Non-profit organizations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The WFP piece looks like a press release. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So what? Here are some more sources: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a small sampling after 15 minutes on Google. There must be hundreds more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations: Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Press releases can't be used to establish notability. Trivial mentions also don't establish notability. Let's see what we can find on this organiztion that establishes its notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A press release by the Foundation itself, cannot be used to assert notability. On the other hand, Press releases of NGOs such as the Houston Food Bank, Indonesian Development of Education and Permaculture, The World Food Programme, the Red Cross, and Rotary International most certainly establish notability of a charitable foundation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've seen any precedent for that. Separately, Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions describes it as a part of the DLM/EV new religious movement founded in the 1930s. If that's the best source we have (it appears scholarly) then we should correct the text to reflect it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Foundation was founded in 2001, and the only relation implied in that source is that it is related to Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have notability concerns, bring the article to AfD. I can assure you that it will fail, as there are sufficient sources to attest for notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I serious? You're saying that the Houston Food Bank is a more reliable source than a scholarly book. While the TPRF may have bneen founded as an individual entity in 2001, it is identified in a relaible sources as being part of a new religious movement founded earlier. That seems like a good source to include. As for deletion, if it survives an AfD then fine and if it doesn't, then that's fine too. I wouldn't worry about it - Wikipedia won't fall apart with one less article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Will, I think that you are being unreasonable with that argument. Good editorial judgment is always needed. All we need to establish notability is if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. The sources I provide attest to the the scope of the activities of this organization. As for the other source I provide, a mention of the foundation as being related to others organizations associated with Prem Rawat is as obvious as it can be, and does not imply anything of what you assert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the disseminating the message of Prem Rawat is different form the mision of the Elan Vital, or the mission of the Divine Light Mission. Based on my editorial knowledge of other parts of the Prem Rawat movement this foundation certainly does appear to be part of it. If you look at the definitions of reliable sources in WP:V, it's hard to see how the Houston Food Bank fits.
  • Articles must rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
Does the food bank have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Perhaps, but I'd be surprised. Most folks go to food banks for food, not for reliable, fact-checked information on foundations in other states. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Will, really... Of course the Prem Rawat Foundation's charter includes the dissemination of Rawat's message. That is not disputed (it is all over their website, as well as in the BBB website). The reliability of the NGOs sources is related to the humanitarian activities of the foundation, and as such these sources are reliable for these facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that that's the same mission as the EV has. Which is what Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions is saying - that TPRF is a part of an NRM that began with the DLM in India in the 1930s.
Regarding notability, a mention in a press release from a local foodbank thanking the TPRF for a donation isn't the type of source we'd generally use to establish notability. The usual standard, across all topics, is an article featuring the subject in a reliable source. Now some ADF contributors may prefer the lower standard suggested in WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations. I think we can have faith in their judgement. I wouldn't worry about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, no. It is not a local foodbank thing, Will. It is much more than that as per sources provided, and as a charitable organization that partners with other NGOs, material from these NGOs is most appropriate to attest to its charitable activities. And no, the foundation is not an NRM, and has nothing to do with Elan Vital or with the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Houston Foodbank sure sounds like a local food bank, not a reliable source for factual data about a foundation in another state. We have a reliable source (which you found and offered as a reference)) that links DLM, EV and TPRF, calling them one new religious movement. Let's not get too emotional over this, it's just an encyclopedia article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, perhaps it would be a good idea to recuse yourself and let the community decide. DurovaCharge! 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you saying Durova? Recuse myself from what? I am not editing these articles. Do you want me to recuse myself from commenting in talk pages as well? If you read above, I told Will to take this article to AfD if he believes that the article does not meet Wikipedia:COMPANY#Non-commercial_organizations. Sources for this article are available here. (Explain to me how your comment is useful, Durova) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<<< Check similar articles:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't understand why you list a source as supporting the notability if this group, but deny everything what the source says about the group. If you don't think it's a reliable source it'd be better to leave it off of your list. If you do think it's reliable then I don't understand your opposition to including material sourced from it.
As for Durova's recusal request, in reply you link to a page that doesn't specify which articles are involved, implies that it's temporary, and omits a commitment to follow the COI guideline. While everyone appreciates your efforts to follow best practices, it'd help if your statement were clearer. Participating on talk pages is OK but participating in AfD discussions should be avoided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(a) I have no intention in participating in AfD discussions, Will. (b) My temporary, self-imposed probation, applies to all articles directly related to Prem Rawat. (c) I will not resume editing for the foreseeable future, unless there is overwhelming disruption at these articles, which hopefully will not happen given your participation and the 1RR probation we worked together to propose. And if such disruption takes places I will take it to ArbCom and ask them to assess editors' behavior (including mine, of course) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your statement would be improved if you included that information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding footnote 7...

It's been over a year since that fluffy piece of vapor-info was released, if there is no update on this material, I plan to remove it shortly. Forecasting has no place in this article. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but there is an update. The food-aid program has now become a reality. I have amended the article accordingly. Rumiton (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, I was hoping there would be some more news on that somewhere. Thanks for digging it up. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar

Several foundations and private companies in the United States have already made generous contributions to help WFP's emergency operation in Myanmar.

  • Boeing -- $100,000
  • Caterpillar Foundation -- $50,000*
  • Hewlett-Packard Company Foundation -- $250,000
  • The Prem Rawat Foundation -- $100,000

Source: [2] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If this shows up in a reliable 3rd-party source it'd be worth adding. 03:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, it will be picked up by other sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)