Talk:Divine Light Mission

The Wikipedia Community has placed this article on 1RR probation Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months, ending June 4 2008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

Millenium '73

I have expanded the description of Millenium '73, based on the text in Prem Rawat. Everyone editing here now worked together to produce that version, so I trust it approximates consensus. The existing text was not very descriptive, gave insufficient weight to the event (which is the single most notable and famous thing about the Divine Light Mission), and was non-neutral in the way it downplayed the disapointment of the event (which has been called a "fiasco" by reputable sources.) The text also had some references which must have been orphaned by earlier edits, as they had nothing to do with Millenium '73. Msalt (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good, and definitely an improvement. Due to the extensive coverage of the event it may be worth expanding it to a section in this article. and reducing it somewhat in the bio. Some claim that Prem Rawat didn't have much involvement in its organization or prmotion, even if he was the "star". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I agree that this article is the better place for full discussion of the event. However, I do think that discussion of Millenium '73 also needs to be in the Prem Rawat article. It would be crazy (and more importantly, would violate many Wikipedia policies) to have a bio of a figure that failed to mention that, as a teenager, he was the center of a multi-day celebration in the Houston Astrodome. Msalt (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct WillBB. Rawat's mother and Mishler controlled DLM until Rawat became an emancipated minor but that was after Millennium. Rawat's brother BBJ was in charge of the Millennium fiasco.Momento (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia. I lived right through those days and I didn't know Millenium was a fiasco until I read it here. Rumiton (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As this section has expanded it seems a good idea to explain that BBJ and Bob Mishler were in charge of Millennium.Momento (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are verifiable sources, we can consider that. However, right now it kind of sounds like you want to diminism Rawat's responsibility for what is widely acknowledged to be a failure, for POV reasons, and I object to that. Msalt (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Object all you like. Rawat was 15 he had not legal control over DLM. Scholars have written that Mata Ji and BBJ and Mishler controlled DLM and within 6 months Rawat took legal action to achieve legal independence.Momento (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's look at the sources and see what they say. Rawat was the one on stage, he was the "Lord of the Universe", so he obviously had SOME say in the matter. Clearly, this era began a period of struggle within the family, and I don't doubt that the failure of Millenium '73 was a big cause of that conflict. But my opinions and your opinions don't really matter, since we're not reliable sources. Msalt (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting putting my opinion, there are reliable sources who say it.Momento (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors please note that Millennium is spelt with a double n (Millennium, not Millenium). Jayen466 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, Davis used the word "reasonable" (see source notes). Why the deletion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it even appropriate to quote a primary source, Collier, for this information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If Collier is an appropriate source then is there any objection to adding that Mishler told her that Prem Rawat was "sloshed"? If so then why would we treat her reporting of Davis' comment differently from her reporting of Mishler's comment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The decision to include or not to include a source depends on individual circumstances. There would be an objection to quote Collier quoting Mishler about Rawat in this article because it's not about DLM and it's irrelevant. But since there are already comments about people estimating attendance at a festival organized by DLM, the estimate by the General Coordinator is relevant.Momento (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If the star of the Millenium '73 festival is drunk that's just relevant as the assertion that, despite publicizing the figure of 100,000 attendees and reserving 35,000 hotel beds, the "General Coordinator" was privately saying he expected far fewer people. Again, I don't think this autobiography is a suitable source for either assertion. But if editors here insist that it is suitable, then it's suitable for both assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Collier says " Rennie carefully noted this down as if he believed BB, Rennie would then quietly reserve hotel rooms for only 22,000". And this isn't an autobiography, it's about DLM. If sources are in conflict about attendance, why not present both views. As for being "sloshed", none of the dozens of reporters in attendance at the festival mention it, so as far as Rawat at Millennium is concerned it isn't relevant.Momento (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As it happens some of the reporters did comment on the aspect of Prem Rawat, on his dancing, his odd responses in the press conference, on how he showed up late, etc. So we do have secondary sources, though none of them actually asserted that Rawat was drunk, just like none of the reporters quoting Davis have him predicting that the event would be a setback or a fiasco. That's why primary sources are difficult to use - if their assertions aren't corroborated or passed through the filter of a reliable secondary source it's hard to know how much credence to give them. It is certainly inappropriate to allow positive assertions from certain source while forbidding less-postive ones. Collier is either in or out as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I don't have to actually say this, but for the record, I am strongly opposed to Collier as a source (but I also agree with Will's reasoning if we're keeping her. There's also a few other drug abusers in Downton I'd like to quote if she stays). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Collier - I know have a copy of the book in hand and see that it has considerable information on the DLM that is not included in the article. If we've decided that Collier is acceptable then I'll start adding some. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Davis's quote about "every single human being will know the one who was waited for by every religion of all times has actually come" is irrelevant to an article on DLM. It's a personal opinion. If it doesn't go then any body's opinion can be added.Momento (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Davis isn't "anybody" - he was the grand coordinator and the most public speaker on the Millennium. His statements set the high expectations for the event. We already cite Collier quoting Davis giving his opinion (added by you) so I don't see the basis for your objection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Davis quote I added was an "expert" comment on an existing topic, attendance at the DLM event. The quote you added has no relevance to DLM, it is Davis's opinion about Rawat. Obviously Rawat is the most important speaker on Millennium, I'll add some of what he said, in proportion to his importance relative to Davis.Momento (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices section

... could benefit from expansion, perhaps summarizing some of the related material in the Teachings article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to proposing new fixes until we've corrected the errors in your last fix. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will propose new material about this after I complete my research on the subject, at which point I will place the new proposed section in a sandbox. If any of you want to help with the research, you are most welcome to add/modify the sandbox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post again here when you have something for us to look at. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What about giving a hand and doing some of the legwork? Here is a source that can be used: U S. Dept of the Army (2001). Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains. [Seattle]: University Press of the Pacific. ISBN 0-89875-607-3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How are we going to distinguish the "beliefs and practices" of the DLM from the "teachings of Prem Rawat"? There was once an article on Past teachings of Prem Rawat, and it was once suggested that it be merged here. Perhaps we should review the material there and see if anything is useful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the Snapping survey is based on 353 ex-members from 48 cults. Momento (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I re-added Haan. I cannot think of any good reason why he was removed taking into account that the did participant observation in the DLM for about two years and wrote a peer reviewed article about it. I know that Jossi does not agree with what Haan wrote, but so be it. It is one of the better sources. Andries (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a very poor source, for reasons I have explained profusely hundreds of times (I do not intend to raise them again, I will look for previous discussions in the archives). You say that the article was peer reviewed? That's new. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article was publishe in a peer reviewed magazine about religious movements. Yes, I am aware of your objections and to say that I find them unconvincing is an understatement. Andries (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(a) It is a student paper, written from a Christian perspective, alongside others papers with similar viewpoints (Haan wrote that he was a member of a critical movement within the Roman Catholic Church and that he was a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school when he wrote that paper), also Vrije University is rooted in the Christian faith per their mission statement; (b) The publication is inly available in Dutch and only available in 4 libraries [1]. Given that we have much better sources, the opinion of this student is not really needed (besides being completely off the mark, btw) I know you have fought hard for the Dutch sources, Andries, but some of these are really obscure and largely uncited works. So, we have to agree to disagree, I guess. (I would want to see nature of the "peer review" that you refer to) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ad a) No, it is not. At the moment that Haan wrote the paper based on the DLM in Amsterdam he could not have been a student in Heerlen anymore. It is not written from a Christian background, but Haan explicitly stated his backgrounnd to enable the reader to detect possible bias. This only increased the reputability. Geaves should have followed his example in this respect. If you know the magazine better then you would know that the series is not written from a Christian perspective.

ad b) The paper is in full available on the internet nowadays and is linked to in the article, so your argument that only few libraries have it is irrelevant. With regards to the peer review, Kranenborg stated for example that they could not publish an article about Catholicism in the Netherlands because they could not find an author.

This is as far as I know the only paper apart from Downton that is based on lenghty participant observation, so it is one of the best sources available. Andries (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not peer reviewed, then. Is it? And if Haan described his bias, then why on earth did you not include that very pertinent information in your edit? I do not read Dutch, so I will leave it to others that do to make an assessment of that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The magazine has an editorial board and is the best source available about religious movements in the Netherlands. I am willing to explain in the footnote Haan's explicitly stated background, but not in the main text because that would be unwieldy and interrupts the flow too much. Do you want that? Andries (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

??? Every magazine has an Editorial board. Peer review is a completely different thing in academia, and has a specific process that it is followed. Not in this case, obviously. As for your question, the answer is no. I do not consider this a useful source for the reasons stated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the editorial board that are specialist in the field of cults and NRMs would have not accepted Haan's article if it was a bad one. It will be clear that, as usual, we have not come a millimeter closer. Andries (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have new information, Andries: (a) the mistake you made in calling this a peer reviewed article; (b) the omission of important context; (c) the fact that one no other than our friend van der Lans was in the editorial board. WP:DUCK You can carry on with your promotion of an unknown and un-cited student paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(a) I am not convinced that I made a mistake. I think the article has been scrutinized by relevant experts in the field.

(b) I do not think this is important context

(c) I had originally inserted this in this article long ago but the names of the people of the editorial board had been removed by user:zappaz with the argument that my way of citing was wrong, so this is not new. Andries (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(b) I do not think this is important context

Jossi, I am also interested to now which of the sources listed hereunder and in the article are peer reviewed? Andries (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ad c. Jossi, you argued yourself that the names of the editorial board should be removed and now you criticize me for not listing the editoral board. Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Archive_1#Those_editors_of_the_Haan_article_are_important. Andries (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You said that the article was peer reviewed, not me. In any case I would think that have argued enough. Let others comment, and it can be added to the mediation list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< This section needs quite a bit of work. Hummel is over-represented as well as Conway & Siegelman. There are plenty of other sources, that either are not used, or if used not attributed to the scholars that made them (Hunt, Chryssides, Melton, to name a few.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most sources talk about rawat's beliefs and teachings, not DLMs.Momento (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This section as per this revision needs also extensive work as it presents only a selection of sources, names some sources while not mention others and completely ignoring other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits 4/19

I just checked-in this morning to find numerous edits which are mis-representing the sources used, that contain too much editorializing for comfort, a merge of an existing article into this that was never discussed, and to top it off, an "analysis" above that is nothing else than unsubstantiated personal opinion not reflected in any sources on the subject. I will comment on detail on these issues tomorrow and would appreciate some basic consensus before any further massive changes and additions are considered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss any edits with you whenever you like. However, like other good editors[2], I'll continue to add sourced information and improve the article without waiting for permission from other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jossi, I've felt that way about 100 times returning to find dozens of edits by Rumiton and Momento without discussion. I too wish the articles were stable, and that until then people would move with discussion and consensus, but it has not been the reality for some time.Msalt (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding sources is fine but WillBeBack has removed a lot of important sourced material, particular related to Rawat assuming control of DLM and wishing to determine its direction, that will now have to be put back.Momento (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put back most of the material removed by WillBeBack and will be adding more later. I have reordered some material i.e. putting the Indian material in Indian DLM, taking the attack on Rawat out of Millennium and into the previous section.Momento (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Having spent an hour replacing valuable sourced material removed by WillBeBack and fixing the chronology and logic of crudely inserted "new"stuff, I am disappointed that I have to fix up this unnecessary mess.Momento (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What did I delete? I don't recall deleting much of anything. Can you provide the diffs? i do see you reverting quite a few of my changes. Can you please explain your reverts? Why for example was the info about the marriage deleted - several sources call it an important event in the history of the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento said I deleted stuff, but I don't see any deletions in the above list. Was momentor incorrect when he accused me of having "removed a lot of important sourced material"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above you "deleted a lot of important sourced material, particular related to Rawat assuming control of DLM and wishing to determine its direction". The material summarized from three scholars described that Rawat was in conflict with his family over the direction of DLM before the split and the references that went with it. You then created your own story that omitted it entirely. Rawat's desire to take control of DLM and the consequences it produced is probably the single most important incident in the history of Western DLM. And despite discussions on the talk page that resulted in consensus to include it, you removed it without discussion. Momento (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I deleted it. I split a long sentence into three sentence and added additional material.[3] Is that the edit you're referring to? And is that the "lot of important sourced material" that you were referring to me removing? At most I deletd a clause. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You did delete it and here's the diff [4].Momento (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which words did I delete? I'm having trouble finding it. Do you mean the words "his conflict with his family over the direction of DLM"? Is that the "lots of important sourced material" that you spent an hour restoring? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason I can't understand you made an effort to delete this crucial info. If you'd only read what I wrote you'd see I also spent my time "fixing the chronology and logic of crudely inserted "new"stuff".Momento (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, this material has a clear source, yet you deleted it with the summary "removed unsourced material"[5] Can you explain?

Certainly. Tthe claims that Rawat "stopped giving interviews to 'the press'" and "avoided contact with non-members" are unsourced. Melton, who is given as the source, doesn't mention "the press" and says "contacts with non-members were 'largely' avoided". But since you seemed to want to include something about interviews and this is about DLM not Rawat I replaced it with the more appropriate quote regarding interviews "The organization has granted no interviews and publishes no general announcements of Maharaj Ji's visits" which is sourced and accurate .[6]Momento (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Melton wrote "Maharaj Ji refused to give interviews, and contacts with non-members were largely avoided." You deleted as unsourced this text "Rawat stopped giving interviews to the press and avoided contact with non-members." If you really think that "the press" is unsourced then you should have removed only "the press". The rest of the sentence is almost identical to Melton's text. It's disruptive to remove a chunk of material whien you only object to a part, and you've received complaints about simialr behavior in the past. Please restore the sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When an experienced editor distorts two claims in one sentence, it is not from inexperience or an accident. It seems designed to make a point [7]. You said nothing when Msalt removed the triple sourced info about the split because he didn't like my summary but when I remove your badly summarized "almost identical" material you tell me I should have corrected it myself? Why would I? This is an article about DLM, the proper place for your corrected summary is the Rawat article. Please treat all editors the same to avoid an impression of bias.PS The difference between "avoid" and "largely avoid" is huge.Momento (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that the "DLM stopped granting interviews"? The source says it was Rawat who stopped giving interviews. As the head of the DLM that obviously effects the DLM, which is why it's in an encyclopedia article about the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where I got it is clearly explained in the ref. Whether Rawat gives interviews or not, may or may not effect DLM. Rawat having four children would effect DLM but it isn't relevant. either. Momento (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When the head of an organization announces he's going to/stops giving interviews, that's notable. Having 4 children, that's personal, it would belong, if anywhere, in the Prem Rawat article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also - you changed the heading to "Rawat assumes control of U.S. DLM" - but didn't he take control of all the DLM outside of India? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The source, Melton, says he "took administrative control of the Mission's separate American corporation". There is nothing about control other than the U.S.Momento (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not looking closely enough. Melton writes, on page 219, "In 1975 Maharaj Ji returned to India and took his family to court. In a court-decreed settlement, he receivd control of the movement everywhere except in India, where his brother was recognized as head." So the heading is misleading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The source refers to Rawat taking control of the U.S.DLM on his 16th birthday and marks an important shift in DLM history. Indian DLM was always controlled by his mother, the 1975 court case was initiated by Rawat to try and take it from her, it failed. The court case has no jurisdiction for the rest of the world. DLMs other than the U.S. were not controlled by Rawat at any stage. Taking control of DLM was as much about removing the American executives as his family.Momento (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another confusion with the heading is that we refer to "Rawat". Isn't "Rawat" also the family name? So the split was between different Rawats. If we were talking about a company owned by the Smith family, and one brother took over a division, it would be confusing to write "Smith assumes control..." One potential way of fixing this is to refer to "Guru Maharaj Ji" rather than "Prem Rawat". If I understand correctly, he was known by the earlier name through almost all of the DLM's activity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made it Prem Rawat in that section. Let's stick with legal forenames and surnames, they are clear in this case (Satpal also used Maharaj as a title). Jayen466 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Point by point

An article as actively edited as this one, and in which we have been (until now) orderly and very actively discussing certain nuances of recent edits, making [[8] this type of edit] by a single editor is puzzling, if not outright worrying. This is not about "waiting for permission from other editors" as Will BeBack argues, it is about consensus. And why do we need consensus? To avoid the type of situation reflected in these edits:

1. [9] DLM in India? That text is not about "DLM in India"
2. [10] Merge? There was no discussion in this talk page about such a merge, no template {{merge}} used to alert active editors of this article
3. [11] no problems with this edit, although the summary suffers from editorializing (e.g. "security force" is not used in the source)
4. [12] misleading edit summary
5. [13] Unsourced assertion
6. [14] Obvious editorializing, adding text not present in the source (e.g. "even kidnapped" is not on Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America); and the misleading attribution of a mention to Jonestown which was made by an unnamed neighbor in a newspaper article, and not as stated in the text.
7. [15] Misleading summary of two sources which make competing viewpoints, one of which was removed from the text
8. [16] Cherry picking quotes from Melton from page 220, missing other important information from that book, including Melton's assertion of the lack of impact of Mishler's allegations.
9. [17] Substantial changes to the lead without discussion, factually inaccurate information added.
10. [18] This article is about not about "Elan Vital", but about the historical DLM, which was disbanded according to the same source used.
11. (cannot find this diff) More editorializing: the erratic behavior of Prem Rawat antagonized the press in Millennium section. The source speaks of "unpredictable", not "erratic".
12. [19] (a) Page 380 does not speak of a "reporter" but of a "young man who disliked the guru"; (b) the "underground newspaper" is not so, it was [Fifth Estate an anarchist magazine, which was decribed by an UPI wire as "anti-establishment" and which describes that "Maharaj Ji said, "I just want to apologize to that person who did that to me. I do not want him arrested or hurt. If someone doesn't understand something, he cannot be responsible for what he does."; Also, what does this have to do with "Millennium" and why to open the section with that incident and with the Will's opinion that "Prem Rawat and the DLM received negative publicity..." ?

So, as per this edit of yesterday in which Will BeBack removes contested material with an edit summary of "rm, pending agreement", I ask Will Beback to consider being consistent and remove all these edits pending a similar agreement.

The question that begs an answer is: Why? Why the lack of good editorial judgment in these edits, the too obvious editorializing, and the insistence with merging articles? Why the rapid-fire edits, and making the excuse that because I edited the article Guru yesterday (which btw, there are not active editors engaged at this point), then editing this article in such a manner is acceptable? I would really want to have an answer to that, as per this evidence assuming good faith is becoming increasingly difficult.

Let me say this: I have no problems whatsoever with being bold in certain circumstances, but Will Beback, who is an experienced editor and a Mediator Emeriti, should know better than being bold in an article as contested as these. If this is the editing environment that Will Beback wants to force upon editors, I would argue that he will need to make an effort to be more careful with his edits and avoid editorializing, misquoting, and by-passing the obvious need to discuss sources, merges, and edits, and seek consensus with other active editors on these matters.

Given the above, I will be filing a request for mediation for this article, with the mediation cabal. Hope that Will Beback and others will take this as an opportunity to find common ground and avoid any ensuing disruption. It is certainly possible to do that, if only active editors want it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my edits, Jossi, it's always good to have more eyes. I'll go through your list item by item:

1. That paragraph is about the Indian side of things. Due to the split, the Indian DLM was under different control than the U.S. side. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

2. The merge was discussed and agreed up. The original article had zero sources, and very little text. The entire text, aside from the lengthy and (uncited) charter, was moved to this article - all three sentences. I do't think it harms this article at all to have the info. The DUO was just an offshoot of the DLM, and it makes more sense to cover them together. Do you really think it's a problem?

3. I think my edit summary was accurate. "+more on U.K. and WPC from Price". The text in Price says "A special branch of the mission, known as the World Peace Corps (WPC) was established, initially to provide protection for Maharaj Ji." "Provide protection" equals "security force", a term used in other sources. What's the complaint about this edit?

4. I'm glad you caught that. It was a mistake, apparently caused by editing an old version in a different tab. I'll re-add that material.

5. I think my edit summary was accurate. "+Perfect master". The edit was to add the words "Perfect Master" to the article, with a source. What's was inaccurate about that?

6. I'd be happy to add sources for the kidnappings. There is plenty of press about it. I'm surprised you weren't aware of them. As for Mishler's concern about a Joenstown repeat, the original UPI interview has it. I'll add it. As carried in one paper it was titled "Two ex-cult officers see possible Guyana repeat" and ran 11/25/78. The L.A. Times article was just quoting that interview.

7. Gee, I dont think I removed anything. And I think my summary was accurate. "more on marriage and split, divide sections" - I added more material on the marriage and the internal split, and I divided the Indian material into a different section, per Nik's suggestions above. What was inaccurate?

8. Melton's assertion about the lack of effect of Mishler's allegations was in this article - I thought it was still but it must have gotten lost in the shuffle. Almost everything in Melton is in this article, which is appropriate.

9. I didn't realize that it was customary to initiate a discussion before making changes to the lead. If you can point me to the last such discussion I'd be happy to learn from it. What inaccurate info was added?

10. The DLM changed its name to the EV and became "virtually invisible." It's relevant to give a short sentence or two to summarize the post-1983 events, such as the current activities of Prem Rawat. Cutting the article off at 1983 and not mentioning anything after does not make a good historical or topical article. But that's an editing decision that we can all talk about.

11. I don't think that using "erratic" for "unpredictable" is editorializing. The thesaurus lists them togethre. Price uses "erratic" to describe his behavior in another context. She's not alone in mentioning the incidents of Rawat showing up late, or not at all, for events and press interviews. We can add more sources and material on that topic.

12. There is considerable coverage of the pie incident from many sources. Melton mentions in as an example of violence by cults. I used "underground" because that's what the source I was reading said - "anarchist" is another term used by other sources and that's fine too. If you'd like to quote the entire response from Rawat we can do that. We can quote the pie thrower too if we want. I put it under "Millennium" because it happened the same year. It's finr in another section so long as it's roughly chronological.

I appreciate your feedback. Most of these are a matter of misunderstandings or misreading the diffs. A couple of sources need to be improved, an error needs to be fixed, and there are a few editorial decisions to discuss. No big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No big deal? Not from my perspective. You took a particular stance and editing attitude with these edits. You can chose to ignore my concerns, so I I will let others address theirs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored your conerns, I've answered every single one of them promptly and have already fixed one of the sources you wanted added. You'll see I ask for more detail or on several of your points - I'd appreciate your responses. Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have ignored my concerns, obviously. Taking these edits as a whole, it paints a significant picture of a certain editorial attitude that is not appropriate for a contested article such as this. You made unilateral editorial decisions of what to include, what to exclude, what words to use and not to use, you made factual mistakes and assumptions such as calling the DUO and offshoot of the DLM, based on your opinion and not on published sources, or by calling the Manav Daram the "Indian DLM", again without sources to substantiate these edits, you added refs to text in which the text is not available in the source provided. Should I say more? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which of your complaints haven't I addressed? I'm more than happy to address them one by one. If the "Manav Daram" isn't part of the Indian DLM then why are we mentioning it at all? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Divine United Organization, Geaves says "From 1974 to 1982 a number of new organisational forms were experimetned with, including Divine United Organisation, which remained in India until recently when it became defunct, to be replaced by Raj Vidya Bhavan." Do you have a better source for the DUO? I'm afraid it's confusing becuase similar names appear to have been used in different contexts. According to Price there was a DUO in the U.K. that was controlled by Rawat's followers, presumably unaffiliated with the DUO in India. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: here's what Price says of the U.K. DUO:

• In Britain a long wrangle ensued over the legal control of DLM as Maharaj Ji was not yet of age, but Mata Ji was out-manoevred by Maharaj Ji's supporters who by-passed the officially registered Divine Light Mission and used Divine United Organization (DUO) (which had already been established in 1973 to co-ordinate the mission's activities) and this became the mission's operational headquarters.

It's easy to confuse the two, but both seem to be off-shoots of the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the above, Will I am sure you understand perfectly well that the word "erratic" ALWAYS carries a negative connotation, while "unpredictable" does not. This is typical of your POV pushing which is reaching the limits of being tolerable. Why don't you stop? Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Chill out. I already changed the word. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked and most of the points have already been dealt with, so here are the ones that have not:

1. A group of people to provide protection for Maharaji, is not a "Security force". You could stay close to the source and avoid editorializing.
2. Kidnapings - If you have to add the criminal activities of Ted Patrcik, then you ought to add that context. Saying "and even kidnapped" leaves the reader without background.
3. A new one: [20]. What vow of celibacy? Prem Rawat, as his father, was never a sanyassin. Orlson stands alone in that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

1. "Security force" is used by a variety of reliable sources:

• The guru lives in Denver or uses an expensive California retreat. He drives expensive cars. He is protected by a private security force, as much to keep his adoring multitudes from him as to prevent intended violence.
  • "Followers Fewer, Church Retrenching for Maharaj Ji" AP, The Charleston Gazette, Friday, November 26,1976
• The most menacing confrontations were with the "World Peace Corps", a mis-nomer since the neatly dressed, English-accented members actually comrpise the guru's goon squad...The fanaticism and violence of the guru's security force proved just as disturbing as the passivity and desperation of his followers.
  • Subject to Change: Guerrilla Television Revisited Deirdre Boyle, Oxford University Press ISBN 0195043340
• ...and Raja Ji, the family's elusive, silent member, became commander of the World Peace Corp, the DLM's ever-present security force.
  • "UNDER THE ASTRODOME" GREGG KILDAY Los Angeles Times, Nov 13, 1973; pg. D1
• Eventually, Maharaj Ji's World Peace Corps security force got thirty-five Krishnas arrested...
  • Kent, Stephen A. From Slogans to Mantas. 2001

If you like I can add these sources.

2. How much context do you want? We can compile a list of those kidnapped, along with the circumstances and resulting criminal charges. I think that it would be interesting information. It'll just take research and time.

3. That's an additional source to support the text "...in part because he had championed celibacy before getting married himself." We already have one source that says exactly that. Here are the two passages we're citing:

• Also, the guru married his Caucasian secretary in 1974 when he was 17, shocking many of his followers (he had championed celibacy until his marriage) and leading to many defections.
  • Richardson, James T., in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, William H. Swatos, ed., Rowman Altamira 1998 p.141 ISBN 0761989560
• The movement split after Guru Maharaj Ji married his American secretary and broke his vow of celibacy.
  • Olson, Carl. The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-Historical Introduction. 2007 Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0813540682 p. 345
• Since Ji had earlier advocated strict celibacy for his followers, his marriage obviously came as a shock to them. Thomas Pilarzyk estimates that between 40 and 80 percent of the ashram premies (the core of the movement) defected over this issue. p. 45
• When Guru Maharaj Ji married his secretary, after admonishing his followers to lead a life of abstinence, half or more of the core member of the Divine Light Mission defected, hardly suggesting total control by the guru. p143
  • Bromly and Supe, Strange Gods 1981,
• The youthful teacher's strong mother and mentor objected to this marriage (holding that her son had broken one of his spiritual disciplines - celibacy).
  • "Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji? " Hinduism Today' October 1983 [21]

Those are reliable, scholarly sources. I don't think I've misinterpreted them.

I'm glad we've narrowed the issues to these few points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly Olson and Richardson are mistaken. I guess best we can do is to make sure these are attributed, as there are many other sources that do not speak of PR having made such vows - I will look for some sources (It may be understandable that they made these mistakes, as during that times the ashrams had such a vow, but PR never made one.) I would look for other sources about this Peace Corp (which btw, I never hear of before), as it seems quite implausible that they were a "security force". Regarding the context I am asking for Patrick, you could simply attempt to write as per the source you provided, that he was incarcerated for these unlawful activities. That would suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly Olson and Richardson are mistaken"? Why is that clear? As for the World Peace Corps, I'd never heard of it before doing this research either. I only know what I read when it comes to this topic. Regarding Patrick, his conviction seems like the least relevant issue to this topic. All it shows is that the claims of kidnapping weren't spurious. While it's not irrelevant, it's less relevant than the number of kidnappings, other anti-cult activities, etc. I'll try to find more material on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shri Hans, while leading his movement, was a householder, married, and fathered children. It does not stand to reason that there would have been any expectation on Prem Rawat, as his heir, to behave differently from his father. Incidentally, does anyone know whether Shri Hans recommended celibacy to his followers, or if there were similar ashrams in India where people were encouraged to live a celibate life? Jayen466 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was a householder, and that was one of the reason that after Sarupanand (his teacher) died, he was challenged as a successor, and basically started a new. There were ashrams during his time, of course, and ashram members had celibacy vows, although the vast majority of his students were not asked to take these vows. If you are interested in Sri Hans life, there is excellent historical material in Cagan's "Peace is Possible" (the first three chapters), including the tribulations and challenges he had to face, the criticism of the orthodox Hidu establishment and the criticism he received from others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion in the text is that Rawat "championed celibacy". It has a source which says exactly that. None of the comments above give any indication that he didn't champion celibacy. The assertion is made, not to describe his teachings, but to give the context for the departure of people from the ashrams in order to get married themselves. Jos Lammers makes the same point in his memoir, that seeing the guru get married made him wish for a married life. Even if the teaching were limited to ashram members, they were a significant part of the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

I added another citation to the list above, this from Bromley and Shupe. If these aren't reliable sources then we need to review our sourcing for this and related articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Patrick, I can't find any evidence that there were any criminal charges against him regarding the DLM. Charges in cases regarding other movements are irrelevant to this article. Comments by "deprogrammed" members are in the sources and may be useful in some context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant that he was a convicted criminal who targeted some members of the Divine Light Mission for his criminal activities? How can you say that with a straight face? Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick wasn't charged with any crimes concerning the DLM, to the best of my knowledge. And he may not have been the only person who kidnapped DLM members for deprogramming. I think that the existing text is fine. If we want to expand the kidnapping/deprogramming matter then we can list specific incidents and quote the victims. I think that would be interesting but I don't think it's necessary to tell the history of the DLM. We already have a long article on deprogramming that's linked and readers can learn more there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the text of that source? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this question. What source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

India

What's the story with the "Manav Daram"? Is it related to the DLM in India or not? Or to "Raj Vidya Kender" Does anyone know? I would guess that there is considerably more material we could add to the Indian DLM section. If it has a membership of around a million, compared to tens of thousnads of for the Western movement, then this article is unbalanced. Even with the difficulty of finding sources in English we should try to provide a complete picture. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know much about the Manav Daram, but I remember having a source somewhere. I'll look for it. As for India, Prem Rawat troured for several months there last year with 100s of thousands participating in several events (one was attended by more than 350,000 people, if memory does not fail me). As for sources, I would think there are some press releases in the RVK site. I will check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what RVK says: [22]

• 4,400 centers thorough the Indian sub-continent
• +1,000,000 people viewership of their satellite channel, which broadcast through the day Schedule, Info in LyngSat
• Press releases about attendance in India (2006) [23], and about numbers of people learning with the Keys (2004) [24]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Manav Dharam is the main organization of Satpal Maharaj, the successor to the Indian branch of the DLM which Prem Rawat lost to Satpal in the 1973/4 lawsuit when the family split. I agree that it is not given sufficent weight, and sources should not be that difficult to find given that English is the most widespread language in India.Msalt (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your research. I could not find anything at all, but I remember reading something about it so I will keep looking as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few news articles about elections that Satpal has participated in, and some mention he has an ashram in Pauri Garhwal District, but it's all just straight political stuff, contested ballots etc. His following seems to be very localised (Uttarakhand). Though Manav Dharam also has or had a South African website see second entry in google listing which mentions a "Spiritual Educational and Cultural Trust of South Africa", probably mainly catering to Indians from that region living in South Africa. All in all, the absence of sources seems to indicate that Satpal's movement is not notable, and his own notability as a politician, while it outweighs his spiritual notability, seems to be marginal as well. Jayen466 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found far more newspaper mentions of Satpal than of Prem, though many of them are passing mentions. He does appear to have been a significant policician and was a minister of railways, I believe. The book The world of gurus by Vishal Mangalwadi ISBN 0706905237 appears to have some additional information on the Rawat family split. Some excerpts are here:[25], and I've got it on my list of things to find at a nearby library. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we know more about this The World of Gurus book? Published by Published in 1977 by Vikas Pub. House, India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement by Lise McKean ISBN 0226560090 appears to have material on Satpal. Excerpts are here: [26] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that was the one I remember coming across once. I will look again if I have transcriptions of it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Geaves

• Ron Geaves states that although the Divine Light Mission was established as an organization for promoting Prem Rawat's teachings, it developed into a vigorous new religious movement with its own specific traits that included characteristics of a contemporary North Indian Sant panth and nirguna bhakti, combining intense reverence for the living satguru with the millennial expectations of the 1970s counter-culture.
  • Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62 [27]

I'll admit I'm not an expert on this topic, but the first line of our article says the DLM was founded in 1960, when Prem Rawat was two or three years old. If that's true, was it really established in order to promote his teachings? This material (which needs to be either re-written or quoted) appears to be nonsensical. Do we have any other sources that agree the DLM was established to promote PR's teachings? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a source for 1960. As for Geaves text, what do you don't understand? It is pretty clear to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say Prem Rawat's teachings were the same as his father's. No problem. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but wasn't the DLM established to promote his fathers' teachings? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If editors think that Geaves is correct then we need to re-write the intro. It says:

• The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was a spiritual organization founded by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj in 1960 to further his work in northern India.

Geaves directly contradicts that statement. To be consistent with Geaves we'd need to say:

• The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was a spiritual organization founded by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj in 1960 to promote his two year old son's teachings.

Which is plainly ridiculous. I think that particular quote by Geaves is problematic and should be deleted or summarized so as to leave out an implausible assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh? I see absolutely no problem with that statement? I wonder why you don't get it. It has nothing to do with what you wrote above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have not read that paper and that may explain why don't you understand what he means. I have a copy if you want to read it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I have it already. What I don't understnad is why he wsays that the DLM wa established to promote PR's teachings, when we know from a variety of sources that the DLM was founded in 1960 to promote his father's teachings. Maybe when Geaves refers to the DLM he is really meaning the DLM in the U.S. That's the only reasonable explanation I can think of. The long quote should certainly be summarized instead of quoted. (Someone had made a few small changes to make it appear we were paraphrasing him, which is sloppy scholarship). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think Geaves is referring to the Western DLM organisations. Jayen466 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed that weird bit of text. We should really try to summarize this and the other block quotes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trimming, it would be best to summarize the long quotes as per other material used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? No, we should keep the material and summarize the content of these quotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does this material serve? If it's a source for the beliefs of the DLM it should go in the "beliefs and practices" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, it's very hard to believe that you in good faith need a source that the DLM was founded in 1960, as you watch each of the Prem Rawat articles -- including the one on father Hans -- like a hawk and are very well versed on all of these details. In fact, in the [Hans Ji Maharaj] article, Geaves himself is a source on the 1960 founding of the DLM.

The bigger picture is, Ron Geaves is not a good source for this field or this article. Besides the above inaccuracies, he has been a devotee of Rawat since the late 1960s, long before he entered academia, and is not forthright in his articles about his connection to Rawat . Furthermore, his academic reputation is based on his work (which is itself controversial) concerning Islam, not Rawat or the DLM. Msalt (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Your assertion about "being not forthright in his articles" is (a) your opinion; and (b) inconsequential. His academic record is that he is a professor of religious studies with an impeccable career as a Chair of religious studies in one of the main universities in the UK. Check his bibliography. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Geaves is fine by me. Academics are not required (and, I think, not in the habit) to declare their own religious affiliations. In a democratic and pluralistic society, articles in academic journals are accepted or rejected based on their scholarly merits, not on the basis of the author's religious affiliation. Jayen466 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, would you agree then, that since Prem Rawat was 2 at the time, that the quote we're using does not make sense? Also, since PR's visit to the west seems to have been strongly opposed by the family, even years later, what makes you think they created that Western DLM branch just for PR at the time? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 13:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find "they" did not create it. It was registered by someone called Bob Mishler, who was a devotee of PR's, to coordinate his work. Though at that time his family was still entirely supportive of him. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Mishler was the president of DLM in the US. Are you talking about the setting up of the legal entity with the government or something? Either way if that's the case, then Geaves is just wrong isn't he? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article used to state that the US DLM was registered as a church by Mishler. What does Geaves say? Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique, while I haven't read the paper, I assume Geaves is referring to the U.S. and/or U.K. DLM which were established later, and were indeed established as a vehicle for Rawat's teaching. Jayen466 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi states that Geaves is at "one of the main universities in the UK" - utter nonsense. Chester's entry requirements to it's Sociology degree course is in the lower half of UK Universities. Geaves is a moderately sized fish in a tiny pool.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that you dislike Geaves. Nonetheless, your opinion of the University_of_Chester and [Liverpool_Hope_University]] is of no consequence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accord your sense of pettiness to me. I neither like nor dislike Geaves - you made a claim about him which is false. His specialism at his University has a below median entry tariff - which hardly makes it a 'main University' - Sociology at Cambridge for instance would demand 360 points, Chester requires merely 260 and the lowest score anywhere is 200, with the mean for institutions being around 300. Religion is a backwater in UK sociology and its study has made almost no impact upon the wider discipline - net Geaves is not significant and his articles have to stand on their own merits not some assumed quality of the author.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Geaves' articles on Rawat are a problem

I’m providing a link to an off Wikipedia criticism of Geaves’ work on Rawat, that I wrote in 2006, if there is a consensus that this is not appropriate, I will copy the article to a sandbox page if continued discussion requires it. Criticism of Ron Geaves' Treatment of Prem Pal Singh Rawat Additionally there are two points that Jayen makes which I want to deal with specifically. Firstly, Geaves’ adherence to Rawat is not equivalent to an academic who simply holds a religious belief – Geaves is not, as it were, merely attending Church, Synagogue, Mosque or Temple, and then happening to write about Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam or Hinduism. Geaves has been an active player in the development of Rawatism – not a passive ‘believer’. Secondly, and following from the first point, Geaves’ lack of transparency when writing about Rawat is a problem academically. Geaves’ approach as a sociologist is fundamentally quantitative, written from the impersonal perspective, this is fine except Sociology recognises the problem and value of the ‘personal’ and allows that perspective within in a qualitative approach – a good example of this is Kent – who writes unequivocally in the first person. Geaves’s work on Rawat would be entirely valid in principle (the errors and overstatement still make it dubious in practice) if he had acknowledged his own position, and authored those articles in the first person.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rawatisms? More WP:OR? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Banning/Persecution

I'd like to compose a paragraph, probably for the "Reception" section, on instances of the DLM being banned or persecuted by governments. So far I've found that it was banned by the governments of Singapore and Argentina, and apparently somewhat persecuted in Israel. I believe there's more. We can also fold in the occasions of it being listed as a "cult" in government reports. Does anyone knowof other instances? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit is not complete and lacks context

This edit, is incomplete:

The DLM faced persecution and even banning in some countries. In 1972, 87 members of the DLM were arrested in Argentina and the organization was outlawed along with other groups at the behest of Roman Catholic Church during the "Dirty War".[134][135] Over 200 members were arrested in Chile, including 12 foreigners, in 1974.[136] The DLM was banned by Singapore authorities in the late 1980s.[137]

It misses very important information as supplied by the sources I gathered:

• Missed context about the totalitarian Argentina and Chile military regimes of that time;
• Does not include the Buenos Aires Herald who called the Argentina ban as "unfortunate and disturbing" and noted that the decree did not show the DLM had acted contrary to Argentine law, morals, or national security;
• Misses context about Singapore.

Can editors for once, attempt to use the sources provided and include the necessary context? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be added:

• In 1972, Eighty-seven members of the DLM, where arrested in Mar del Plata on charges of using drugs and practicing their faith. The Buenos Aires Herald, an English newspaper, said at the time that Argentina seemed to be suffering from "one the the greatest eruptions of religious persecution in its history as an independent nation"

... alongside the other material from the Buenos Aires Herald, the Chile material, and the context for Singapore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text (still needs work on the Singapore ban)

Members of the DLM faced persecution and the organization banned in some countries. In 1972, during the rule of the Argentina third military dictatorship, eighty-seven members of the DLM where arrested in Mar del Plata on charges of using drugs and practicing their faith. The Buenos Aires Herald, an English newspaper, said at the time that Argentina seemed to be suffering from "one the the greatest eruptions of religious persecution in its history as an independent nation" The junta banned the DLM in a decree, which was later declared as unconstitutional and criticized by the Buenos Aires Herald as "unfortunate and disturbing" as the decree did not show the DLM had acted contrary to Argentine law, morals, or national security. Sources describe the ban to have been made at the behest of the Catholic Church in Argentina. A similar situation developed in Chile in 1974, in which the military government Junta of Chile arrested 208 members of the DLM.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[e/c] What's our source for the Buenos Aires Herald? I can't find it. Regarding your other points, this is an article about DLM not the history of Latin American Juntas. We can add "using drugs" if you think it helps the text. I don't see any more context to add about Singapore. We don't have an article about the Societies Act and it's not even included in a comprehensive list of Singapore legislation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you're misreading the source on Chile - it was another group whose members were sent to prison camps. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are lsited. And yes, we certainly need that context. Absolutely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Buenos Aires Herald. The link is to some database of documents that mostly mentions anti-semiticism. Why do we need to include information about the political conditions in Argentina? The text already mentions the "Dirty War", that should be sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are declassified documents from the US embassy in Argentina, related to the breaches of human rights in that country. Thes documents refer to the Herald and quotes from it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources:

• GOA [Government of Argentina] banned all activities and publications of the Divine Light Mission and Hare Kirshna sect in mid-january. the decree stated that freedom of religion as guaranteed by the national consitution is limited in that religious ideas must not go against national security, moral standards and public and social order. The Buenos Aires Herald (Jan 27) called the ban "unfortunate and disturbing" and noted that the decree did not show how either group had acted contrary to Argentine law, morals or national security.[28]

• The subject of human rights abuses, disappearances and general concern over the internal security situation is being aired more openly in recent months. the bishops conference document denouncing torture, disappearances and human rights abuses was acknowledged by Videla and other govt officials and in newspaper editorials. The supreme court and federal courts have taken the executive to task for unsatisfactory responses to habeas corpus inquiries and judicial orders. (the executive, however, apparently continues to ignore or appeal court decisions on security cases.) a court has declared the ban against the Divine Light Mission unconstitutional--the govt appealed;[29]

Thanks for fixing those refs. However it would be inappropriate to add significant background ("context") on the political situation in Argentina when editors are removing sourced, relevant information about the subject of this article because of a claim of "undue weight".[30] I suggest that we first add information about the DLM, and then if we feel the article needs to be longer we can add information on related events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. I have added this to the list of things to be mediated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

I know that the Dirty War in Argentina waged by the military regime, banned many non-traditional religions (any religions other than Catholicism was severely restricted during that time (I lived there for many years), but I am not aware of any sources. I do not know of any other such bans. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Found some sources (my text below, sourced to Facts on File):

In 1972, Eighty-seven members of the DLM, where arrested in Mar del Plata, Argentina on charges of using drugs and practicing their faith. The Buenos Aires Herald, an English newspaper, said at the time that Argentina seemed to be suffering from "one the the greatest eruptions of religious persecution in its history as an independent nation"

You can also find de-classified documents from the dirty war times, related to this here: [31], [32], [33] (this last one states that the Buenos Aires Herald called the ban was "unfortunate and disturbing" and noted that the decree did not show the DLM had acted contrary to Argentine law, morals, or national security); and this one [34] refers to a court declaring the ban unconstitutional. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess who was behind the ban in Argentina? No other than the Church colluding with the totalitarian military regime of the time:

During the most recent military regime, the Church was able to persuade the military to outlaw several "marginal Protestant" groups (e.g. Divine Light Mission, Jehovah's Witnesses) operating in the country. These groups were mostly new to the religious scene and were quite visible in their proselytizing activities. As such, they made easy targets for a military ban.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another source: The Washington Post, March 17, 1978. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Argentinean Sect Members Said To Be Arrested': Six members of an Argentinean religious sect called the Center of Inner Religion reportedly were arrested Feb. 16 by that nation's military officers in Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina. The five men and one woman reportedly were seized during a meeting at the home of one of those arrested, whose wife also was seized but later was released. The six were blindfolded and taken to a military detention center where they were held without charges.

Is the "Center of Inner Religion" another name for the DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've left it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel

I also lived in Israel for many years, and there was no such persecution, although the orthodox religious made some attempts to get the government involved in some kind of witch-hunt spearheaded by Miriam Glazer-Tassa but that never happened. BTW, there is no concept of "cult" in Hebrew, which uses the term "כת" which means generically "Small group", although the term has been used in the last decade to be interchangeable with "sect" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Singapore

::ICSA refers to a report about DLM and other "cults ("New Groups")" in Israel.Part 2 of that report would seem to be the most interesting, where "The other groups examined are Scientology, Transcendental Meditation, Bhagwan Rajneesh, Ananda Marga, Unification Church ("Moonies"), ISKCON-International Society of Krishna Consciousness, D.L.M.-Divine Light Mission, Finger of God". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Google books also has a reference to DLM being banned in Singapore for being a religious cult. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The authoritarian aspects of the People's Action Party outlawed the DLM and other groups in the early 1980's:

Another coercive tool is the Societies Act (1988), which requires organizations of more than ten people to be registered. This practice began in 1900, when the colony was troubled by violent Triads. Under this act, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification Church, and the Divine Light Mission have been banned. Interestingly, the Falun Gong is legally registered as the Falun Buddha Society. Since the 1980s, the Societies Act has been used to ensure that the actions of registered organizations conform to their stated purposes. It has been effective in keeping groups other than political parties and a couple of political NGOs from engaging in political activities. Singapore is often heavily criticized for its control of the media. The government, through government-linked companies and private holding companies with close ties to the government, owns all general circulation newspapers, all domestic television channels, and almost all radio stations. The PAP government does not allow the media to assume an adversarial “watchdog” position. There are numerous legal measures the government can employ to ensure compliance, and, concomitantly, this has encouraged self- censorship. Recently, the PAP has been loosening up a bit, trying to define the limits of what it considers acceptable in terms of political dissent by initiating what are called “out of bounds” markers. Mauzy, Diane K., The Challenge to Democracy: Singapore’s and Malaysia’s Resilient Hybrid Regimes. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 2, No. 2: 47-68

In Singapore there has been a non-profit organization which was registered in 1999 under the Societies Act described in that source: http://www.insight.org.sg/html/aboutus.htm ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Were the Triads around in 1900 or should that be 1990? Did the DLM still exist in Singapore in 1988 or 1990? And if so do we know whether it was the Indian or the "Western" DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see about the Triads in the 1900s from this book, Singapore Politics: Under the People's Action Party, which explains it more clearly. It's still a bit vague on when the DLM was banned, but it appears to be no earlier than 1988. If that's the case then the DLM still existed at least up to that point, in at least one corner of the world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Chile

• As part of its crackdown on "hippies", spiritualists and social nonconformists, the military junta of Chile announced yesterday that it has sent five members of the Silo religious movement to one of its main political prison camps... [The Minister of the Interior of Chile] contended that these precepts were being undermined by groups like the Siloists and the Divine Light Mission, followers of the 16-year old guru Maharaj Ji... Earlier this week, in a night raid on the Divine Light Mission temple here, the police arrested 208 discipled of the Maharaj Ji. Twelve foreigners caught in the operation were expelled from the country Friday. They included two Indians, three North Americans, and four Latin Americans. Two Americans in the group were identified as Earl Kracow and Lewis Topping. In disclosing the imprisonment of the Siloists General Bonilla said similar measures would apply to disciples of Maharaj Ji. "This is a first warning", said the Minist of Interior.
  • "Five sect leaders in Chile sent to desert prison camp.", Jonathan Kandell, New York Times, March 24, 1974

Interesting. So far we have two military juntas in South America cracking down on the DLM. Any others? Check Paraguay, at that time it was under the Alfredo Stroessner regimen. Also, I remember reading that some of the people incarcerated were tortured. See if you can find some sources on that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the first bullet? Same as the second? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "second bullet" is the source for the text printed following the first bullet. I don't know where I could find any information about Paraguay or torture, but I'll keep my eyes open for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think putting a paragraph about banning of DLM would fit nicely since there seems to be quite a few of bans in various places.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting contradicted sources

There has been a proliferation of inserting material into this article from one source that is contradicted by several. A typical example is Richardson's incorrect claim that Rawat "championed celibacy" which numerous scholars contradict. There's two ways to approach this, either we accept Richardson is wrong in the face of numerous scholars who contradict him or we leave it in and insert all the contrary material. Removing Richardson makes for a neater, more readable article, the alternative becomes wordy, contradicting and less readable.Momento (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact I saw another source this afternoon that mentioned Rawat's "vow of celibacy". Is it your assertion that Richardson is an unreliable source? As for excess verbiage, an editor keeps inserting long blockquotes. If we can get him to stop, and if we can summarize or remove those long quotes, then readability may be less of a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Richardson is an unreliable source. He can't even get the age Rawat got married right.Momento (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Downton also mentions celibacy, one of his subjects states "For example, there's a belief in celibacy." Is Downton also unreliable now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So what if Downton reports that one of his subjects says " there's a belief in celibacy". We're discussing what Rawat said and that is an entirely different matter.Momento (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique has just provided the perfect example of this type of editing. In fact, it's worse. I removed "He also purchased an estate in Malibu" with the edit summary "removed unsourced and contradicted claim". Because, believe it or not, the source actually says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". But even worse, WillBeBack, who inserted this "unsourced and contradicted claim" [35] then followed it with this OR, SYN claim, "These actions (buying the house) led to a permanent rift within the organization and the Family"?!?! Two unsourced claims in one edit Will. This isn't good enough for any editor, let alone and admin.Momento (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I've changed it to "An estate in Malibu was purchased for the couple." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough Will. The source doesn't say that the estate was "purchased for the couple". And what about your claim that "These actions (buying the house) led to a permanent rift within the organization and the Family". Who says the house was an issue? Where's the source for that? And where's the source for "permanent rift within the organization"? Your refusal to provide sources for your claims despite numerous requests is tendentious editing[36] and a violation of WP:VER.Momento (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your request for a source. If you need a source for them buying a house there are plenty in Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply provide that source Will and you will be complying with Wiki policy on Verifiability WP:VER.Momento (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is still no source for your claim "a permanent rift within the organization".Momento (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll find you a source, but this is a petty request. The rift has been permanent, and I haven't seen the slightest evidence to the contrary. Why are you asking for this information? Do you doubt that there has been a permanent Rift in the Rawat family and the DLM organization? Isn'tt here abundant evidence in numerous sources to that effect? If you don't believe that then I'd be interested in hearing about the healing of the rift and the reunification of the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, do you really think it's important to source the fact that there was a permanent split? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt the rift with his family was permanent but a rift "within the organization"? In the section "Prem Rawat assumes control of DLM in the West" we have a sentence saying Rawat "took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch" followed by a sentence saying "permanent rift within the organization". The only organization being discussed is DLM in the west or DLM U.S.. Which of those organizations suffered a "permanent rift"?Momento (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're complaining that I added "permanent rift" with not source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just read what I wrote. And that is "The only organization being discussed is DLM in the west or DLM U.S. Which of those organizations suffered a "permanent rift"?Momento (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Since when was there a U.S. DLM? In 1966 Prem Rawat was the leader of the entire movement, wasn't he? In 1974 he was no longer the leader of the Indian movement. A rift occured in the DLM, creating a split that has turned out to be permanent. What part of that isn't clear? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you want to say, it is badly expressed and chronologically confusing. The fact that the section is about "Prem Rawat assumes control of DLM in the West" and a preceding sentence says "he took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch" suggests that the "permanent rift" occurred "within the U.S. organization", since it is the organization being discussed.Momento (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The material made sense with the heading of "Rift". You are the editor who changed it to "Rawat assumes control of the U.S. DLM". So it's a bit disingenuous to complain that the text doesn't match the heading if the heading has been changed. Why don't we change it back to "Rift"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the section and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, perhaps you'll consider removing the claim that "he had championed celibacy" since that only applied to people living in an ashram.Momento (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<unindent I've already changed "organization" to "movement" (see below). It's obvious that there was a permanent rift in the movement. We might add in the family too. If you have a source saying he only championed celibacy in the ashrams then we can add that. I've found three sources that talk about him promoting celibacy, so there's no reason to delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We know Richardson is unreliable, so that leaves Olson and he makes mistakes as well. Who's the third. It's an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources.Momento (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"We know Richardson is unreliable"? Says who? If making a few mistakes in details makes an quthor unrelaible then we'lll have to throw out Melton. However that isn't the case. Both Melton and Richardson are reliable sources. As for assertions about celibacy, another source is Bromley and Shupe, Strange Gods 1981. I don't think that there's anything exceptional about the claim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's exceptional because most authors say Rawat didn't require celibacy to receive or practice Knowledge.Momento (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have previously accepted Richardson as reliable. To the extent that ashramites were advised to remain celibate, Rawat can clearly be said to have "championed" celibacy, even though he may not have committed to a celibate life himself, following the model of his father. How about a compromise along the lines of "in part because ashram premies had been asked to remain celibate" or "in part because he had advised ashram premies to remain celibate"? Any good? Can we find a source that states that non-ashramites were given more leeway in this respect? Jayen466 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Richardson says Rawat was married at 17. Will provided another source that said Rawat wasn't 16 but really 20. Shouldn't we put "Several sources claim Rawat isn't 16 as claimed". We don't put it in because, behind the scenes, we know he's wrong. Rawat's guru was married, his mother wanted him to marry an Indian and split because he didn't, Satpal, the guru, is married, there is no quote of Rawat "championing celibacy" or "making a vow of celibacy" and ample evidence that says "celibacy wasn't a requirement to receive or practice Knowledge. So why are we, in this case, putting in this exceptional claim?Momento (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You should find evidence that celibacy was only applicable to ashramites, in Downton and Barret's works on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to Downton at the moment. I cna't find any mention of celibacy in the two Barrett books I've got. Can you give the page number and edition please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe that celibacy was a requirement? I do not think that this disputed; it wasn't. I m not sure we can find a source that says "celibacy was not necessary", because it is obvious (e.g. you will not find a source that says that being a Buddhist does not require celibacy, do we?). Barret's book does not speak of celibacy, because it was not a requirement, ditto for many other scholars. On Donwton, I have the book, and I will look and find some material that is pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I only know what I read. The assertion in our article is that Rawat "championed" celibacy, not that he required it. I'm not sure why you mentioned Barrett if he doesn't mention celibacy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this help? "Followers are called "premies", some of whom live celibate lives in ashrams. Most premies, however, live less ascetic lives, many of them in communities." Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy. Contributors: Geddes MacGregor - author. Publisher: Paragon House. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1989. Page Number: 191. Also related: [37] Jayen466 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A summary of that text would go well in the "members" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with summarizing the sources. So far we've got several reliable sources that say he championed celibacy. If we find sources that say he only championed celibacy to ashram residents then of course we can represent that point of view too. However making assumptins about what he would have done or said based on his father's teachings or behavior is not acceptable. There are many obvious differences between the personal conduct of Prem Rawat and his father. Making conclusions of that type would be original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many obvious differences between the personal conduct of Prem Rawat and his father.. Many? Obvious? I did not know you were an expert on Hans Ji Maharaj. I would love to know more about him, and which sources you refer to. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply that the father and son are different people and that it's inappropriate to assume that because the father did or said something that therefore the son must have said or done something. I'm sure I don't have to explain WP:NOR to you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The US DLM was registered from the start as a separate organisation under US law. Please recall that in 1966 Prem Rawat was 8 years old. He was certainly the spiritual figurehead of the family and devotees, but could not in any meaningful way become an organisational leader until he gained emancipated minor status. The distinction is important, I think. Also, there is still (or again) a large Indian organisation that supports his work, Raj Vidya Kendra. It is made up largely of former DLM members who remained loyal to him. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "organization" to "movement" to make it clearer that we're referring to the overall DLM, not any particular national branch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And no source for you claim "called the "Holy Family row". If you continue with this practice of adding unsourced material and refusing to delete or supply sources when asked, I'm going to ask for this page to be protected.Momento (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the sources used as citations for that paragraph? "Holy family row" is in Price. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't see it in the cite you provide.Momento (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the source. It's there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you have removed "almost" from "almost betrayed", turning it from a qualified statement to an absolute. This POV editing has got to stop.Momento (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, assume a little good faith please. I have not seen any refusal to provide sources from Will. As for sources at all, is it your contention that there is no rift within the organization or family? Unless you're disputing that claim, which we all know to be true already, then you should probably re-read WP:CITE#When_adding_material_that_is_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged. It is not necessary to cite everything. We don't have a cite for Prem Rawat being alive, but no one is questioning that either! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, we do have to cite everything and we know Rawat's alive because his article gives a birth date and no death date.Momento (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, we do NOT have to cite everything, if you missed it the first time, here it is again, WP:CITE#When_adding_material_that_is_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged. The point is no one is questioning whether he is alive, and until that changes, it's not necessary to cite it. I asked you if you thought there was no rift in the family. Since you declined to answer, I'll assume you agree, there is a rift. Ergo, we don't need a cite, we have a consensus on that point. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have challenged the claim "there was a permanent rift in the organization" and have asked WillBeBack to supply the source.Momento (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. See footnotes 87,88,89. This seems like a silly thing to question, do you have some idea that maybe there is no rift between the US DLM and the Indian DLM? I don't think that statement is likely to be challenged. Well, obviously, except by you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's either unsourced, or it's contradicted. It cannot be both. Which is it we should be discussing here? Your statement above is in regards to a "proliferation of inserting material", I reverted your edit, I added nothing. Please either make your point clearly, or look at what you're saying before you hit "save". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim is "unsourced" and it is "contradicted". This edit [38] added "unsourced" and "contradicted" material.Momento (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unsourced. Not contradicted. Above you quote the source as saying premies bought the house. What source are you referring to? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the exact same source WillBeBack incorrectly claimed said "Rawat bought it". The source, Melton, says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu".Momento (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no question about the basic facts of the estate. The question of whether he bought it or had it bought is moot since supposedly the subject was living entirely on donations at that time, if I recall correctly. So it's a distinction without a difference.

While verifiable and relevant, the estate is not the most relevant detail in this context. Several sources say that there were two key turning points - the festival and the marriage. The estate was probably not a key turning point, and I've only seen one report that implied it was. Putting the estate in there gave it excess prominence as a cause of the shift in growth. For that reason I've removed the text from the page that I added yesterday. We can always add it later if we re-write the material and it's a better fit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. We could have saved all that, if you had been more careful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

jossi, this comment is a waste of everyone's time, not very nice, and completely useless, can you stick to editing the article (or in your case "not" editing the article) instead of taking shots at editors please. Do you need me to quote some more policy on that? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you for your prompt attention to that embarrassing matter. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...didn't this conversation already take place (ad nauseam) on the Prem Rawat talk page concerning the fact that DLM indeed purchased the Malibu estate for Prem Rawat? As I remember, I already provided a letter (on EPO) of thanks from Rawat to premies for giving him his new home, and an article (also from the Press Section on EPO) confirming this fact because Joe Anctil, the spokesman for DLM at the time who confirmed the purchase? This is an utterly absurd and disruptive conversation started by Momento who is being rude and definitely not showing good faith towards editors who are working very hard towards an NPOV article here. I was a member of DLM in 1975. I worked for DLM. The fact is that DLM collected funds from individual premies and ashrams that went towards the purchase of the Malibu estate in which Rawat has resided for around 35 years. In other words, he didn't buy his own mansion. Let's try and provide the sources to back up the real facts, not the opposite. I only hope that the ARMCom is paying attention to this disruption being caused here by Jossi and Momento, which is only serving to waste other editors' time. Judging from the stonewalling going on here one would think that these article are about the Lord of the Universe or something and no sources are worthy of him! :( Sylviecyn (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sylviecyn I'm excited to see we are in accord here, even if inadvertently. Premies did indeed buy the house, not Rawat (or at least that's what the quoted source says).Momento (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Number estimates

These need to be attributed rather than stated as facts, and other numerical information from other sources added as well, as there are competing viewpoints on these numbers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which numbers are you talking about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The estimated numbers in the paragraph you just edited: [39] (a) These are estimated; (b) these are asserted as facts; (c) These are unattributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• One estimate had from 500 to 1200 members living in ashrams in the mid-1970s.

It is represented as an estimate. The estimate is a fact, I didn't make it up. Why do they need to be attributed? Doesn't the footnote do that well enough? The numbers already there aren't attributed, why does this estimate require special treatment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there is a variety of sources claiming different estimates. For NPOV, we ought to list them all, and attribute them to those that make these estimates. That gives the necessary context (again, sorry) to our readers. Also, an estimate is not a fact, even if it is a fact that someone made an estimate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other estimates of DLM membership:

• World Christian Encyclopedia. (1998): 5,000,000 - India
• Melton The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism. New York: The Pilgrim Press (1984) p. 142: 50,000 - USA
• Rudin, James A. & Marcia R. Rudin. Prison or Paradise: The New Religious Cults; Fortress Press: Philadelphia (1980); p.66: 15,000 - USA
• Long, Robert Emmet (ed.) Religious Cults in America , New York: The H. W. Wilson Co. (1994), p.90: 50,000 - USA
• Palmer, Spencer J. & Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah (1990); p. 95: 50,000 USA, 12,000 contributors USA, 1.2 million worldwide.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble about listing single numbers in a history section is that the number of members/devotees/contributors/ashrams dwellers wasn't stable over the life of the DLM. For the history seciton what is important is the change in numbers at different points in time. I think the existing material is good as it is, but if you think that NPOV requires a table of all the estimates of the membership then we can add one at the end. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that it is problematic, basically because the numbers vary wildly between sources. That is why we need to have all these figures, and attribute them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The value of the Dow Jones Industrial average varies wildly too, depending on which decade is being described. I don't see a need to list every single estimate with attribution, especially where some of those estimates are the same. Clearly the 15,000 and 50,000 numbers for the U.S. are for different points in time. We already have both of those numbers in the text. Out of curiousity, what else does "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" say about the DLM? If their estimate of the mebership is relaible then their otther views are presumably reliable as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much point in quoting every source's numbers either, drop the high and the low, and sum up the middle as in "sources estimate the numbers to be between 40 and 50" or whatever. It's not necessary to quote everyone's best guess. This is an encyclopedic article, not an in-depth book on the subject. If the reader wants to know more, we've provided a basis, and a list of sources for more info. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in summarizing these numbers, with some text related to the disparity of numbers estimated by the sources we cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "some text related to the disparity of numbers estimated by the sources" mean? We already sumamrize the numbers in the appropriate places in the article. I don't see what change is being proposed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It means, for example, attributing the estimates and adding some more from the sources I provided to this text: "By 1976 the worldwide membership had declined from 6 million to 1.2 million,[61] and in the U.S. the 50,000 initiates had dwindled to 15,000 regular contributors.[64] One estimate had from 500 to 1200 members living in ashrams in the mid-1970s.[65] By the end of the 1970s the movement had lost an estimated 80% of its followers in the U.S" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We already mention the estimate of 50,000, I don't see anything to be gained by syaig tht the estimate has been printed in various publications. Ditto for the 15,000 estimate. Unless the 5 million esitmate for India has a date it's nearly meaingless - we already have an esitmate of 6 million, though I suppose we could say "up to 6 million" instead. As I said above, I just don't see a problem that needs to be fixed. Maybe I'm missing your point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it that hard to understand what I am asking? I am requesting attribution as well as providing the competing estimates. The way some of the numbers are reading are as if these are facts, which they aren't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We can add another "estimated" in there. I don't see any need to specifically attribute the numbers. Many of them, wherevever published, are probably whatever numbers the DLM gave out so attributing them to one or another author would make it give the false impression that they had made independent estimates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that? WP:OR? A hunch? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In some sources they original source of the information is given. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added an "according to estimates..." at the beginning of the paragraph, which already had "estimated" in two other places. I think it's quite clear now that all the numbers are estimates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<< I can see that my concerns are not being addressed at their core, so I will have to do this myself. I will write an alternative version of that material later today, properly attributed and including all sources available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here:

According to estimates, the worldwide membership had declined from 6 million to 1.2 million by 1976, and in the U.S. the 50,000 initiates had dwindled to 15,000 regular contributors. One estimate had from 500 to 1200 members living in ashrams in the mid-1970s. By the end of the 1970s the movement had lost an estimated 80% of its followers in the U.S. Bromley and Hammond attribute the decline of groups including the Divine Light Mission to internal factors, but also in part to the news media's "discrediting reports about their activities", accounts which created a "wide-spread public perception of 'mind control' and other 'cult' stereotypes." Other estimates by the World Christian Encyclopedia (1998) refer to a following of 5,000,000 in India. Melton as well as Emmet estimated 50,000 followers in the USA in 1984, and Palmer refers to the same figure in the USA in 1990, 12,000 contibutors, and 1.2 million worldwide.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The information at the end contradicts the article. The article says that the DLM was disbanded around 1983. How could it have had 50,000 members in 1990? Are we sure they aren't referring to the EV, which some editors here have insisted is a separate organization? If they are referring to the DLM, then we need to indicate it still existed in 1990 and had just as many members as it had 15 years earlier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts the article, because we have contradictory sources. Read the Reception section for more "contradictions". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we need to address that contradiction. Something like, "despite some sopurces saying that the DLM was disbanded in 1983, other sources report that the DLM still had 50,000 members in 1990...." Or maybe those sources don't really add much and we can leave them out? I'm also wondering whether Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View is really a reliable source for this subject. Do you have the book in hand? I can't seem to find a copy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with the LDS pedigree in keeping and collecting data about religions, but they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave these out? Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The World Book is a tertiary source, and there's no point in just repeating what has already been sourced to better sources. Let me ask you about the LDS book again - do you have it in hand and what else does it say about the DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The World Christian pedia was published much later than the source you gave for 6 m, and I do not see a problem with a tertiary source. As for the LDS book, I do not have it at hand. Next time you or I go to the library, we can check it out. It is also available from Amazon for 8 bucks used ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in The Modern World, ISBN 0195079639. It will be good to check that edition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If none of us have the LDS book how do we know what it says? Worldcat indicates it's only in a few libraries.[40] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From my notes: "General membership numbers approximately 1.2 million worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. There is a core group of 3,000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many issues related to the DLM in which different sources have slightly different accounts. In general, we try to pick the most common version while also acknowledging minority viewpoints. This request appears to seek a different outcome, in which the versions of every source are mentioned. I don't see the point of that in regard to membership, nor do I think it makes sense for other parts of the article. The assertion that we need to quote an LDS source, which apparently just copies numbers found elsewhere, in order to be NPOV is bizarre. For example, the Millenium '73 festival was covered by many sources, each of which had it's own assessments. Should we report each one? That'd make the article much longer and more confusing. I don't see why we need to report every membership estimate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Planned marriage

• Rawat's decision to marry a Westerner rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage precipitated a struggle for control.

I don't recall reading about a planned marriage. What's our source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That statement is as per the source used, I think Melton. If I remember correctly it was not about a "planned" marriage, but the traditional arranged marriage. I will check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no source that I see. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America by Melton has nothing about any planned marriage, traditional or otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who added that text? Maybe the editor that added that text can provide the source? I remember reading it somwhere, but I may be wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to a more neutral phrasing ("than a traditional arranged marriage") until and unless we can find a source. I've seen a lot of accounts of the dispute and none mentioned a planned marriage of any sort. Msalt (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a source in Cagan page 198.Momento (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What does Cagan say? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

p. 198. Indian sources say that Mataji had already arranged for her four sons to marry the four daughters of a prominent Indian family of her own Garwhal tribe. Her arrangements were clearly born of an ambition to create a kind of dynasty, and the two elder brothers eventually married two of the chosen daughters. Bal Bhagwan Ji’s wife would later become a member of the state government, but Mataji’s youngest sons refused to fall in line with Indian tradition and with her ambitions. This was unheard of in a traditional Hindu family. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

and previously in page 197: Raja Ji was the first to marry, and the family feud bomb ignited. The family had all had been living together in Pacific Palisades, but Mataji became so upset that Maharaji asked her and Bal Bhagwan Ji to move. So both headed back to India in early 1974. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cagan is a problematic source. However the New Religions: A Guide: is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MedCab assistance

I would be willing to the adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission. I am generally experienced with religious articles, and the mediation thereof, on Wikipedia. I have previously assisted in this specific topic area in the past as an outside party. However, I can reasonably see some people objecting to my participation. As such, I would like some indication as to whether or not the people involved here would accept my assistance as an informal mediator. No explanation is required if you disagree with my involvement (though feedback is always welcome). (Please do not badger someone to explain why they oppose my involvement.) Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediate, Vassyana, mediate! And involve. Oh yes, please do involve! Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone object? I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to you, but I would prefer a completely new editor with no pre-formed opinions on this subject. We already have so few involved in this subject that it seems like a wasted opportunity not to get one more fresh set of eyes/opinions on this. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(I am glad you do not object. Just note that a mediator is not there to offer opinions on the subject they mediate. Rather, they mediate between parties and assist them in finding common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

It makes perfect sense that some people may prefer a fresh set of eyes, and that is the primary reason I asked for opinions before jumping directly into mediation assistance. Maelifique is not the only editor to express the sentiment that I would be a good volunteer, but that fresh eyes could be invaluable. It's not simply a matter of offering opinions, as a fresh perspective can find paths for compromise and notice issues that accustomed eyes may miss. Vassyana (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There are other excellent volunteers at the MedCab, if there is strong opposition for you to lend a hand. Fresh eyes are good, but knowledge of the subject and a previous interaction during GA review, are also pluses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also pluses to having someone who doesn't already have opinions on the matter, this particular topic tends to polarize editors. So again, while I don't object, I'd prefer someone else. Although I'd like to add that I am not in any way disrespecting Vassyana's abilities or intentions. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to Vassyana.Momento (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Jayen466 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been away but want to put my voice in here regarding Vassyana's mediation. I do have an strong objection to Vassyana mediating this case mainly because he's already been involved on Rawat articles in the past without success (here we are again!) and I don't believe he is able to be entirely objective about the content issues here. I think that a new mediator free of biases pro or con religious/cult issues would be more suitable to review this material in an unbiased fashion. I don't see what the big deal is about this and for pro-Rawat editors to insist that Vassyana mediate this is a big red flag, imo, especially considering that Jossi, Rumiton, and Momento glowingly voted for and endorsed Vassyana's adminship last year during the same time period he was intensely involved in the Rawat articles. Btw, why is there a vote going on about this? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm among those who think that a fresh approach is best. Most of the issues outlined at #Mediation can be handled better through RfCs or noticeboards. Some already have been. Some of the issues have barely been discussed on this page and using mediation for them just complicates that process. I suggest that we limit the topics for mediation to those that haven't been taken to noticeboards, and that have been thoroughly discussed here already. I also suggest that we use formal instead of informal mediation, which may be more effective for narrow, well-defined issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation would be useful if informal mediation does not work. I am confident that it will. Let's summarize the pending issues that we have been unable to resolve, that would be helpful. As for noticeboards and RfCs, I do not think these have helped much. We know the policies pretty well and what we need is not a decision of who is right or who is wrong in its interpretation, but a way to find ways to bridge our differences and find a way to reach consensus on a version we can live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you think that noticeboards are helpful? They helped establish that Randi is a reliable source, for example. Since several of the issues are within purvue of noticeboards I suggest we make sure we use those first. In addition to trimming the list of issues, it may be helpful to limit the mediation to active editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all "established that Randi is a reliable source." A comparision of his puerile description of khecari mudra with the Wikipedia article shows he has no knowledge of Indian meditation techniques at all. Inclusion of his statements will only create a seriously muddled and schizophrenic article. Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#James Randi. The consensus of uninvolved editors is that he is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Will. I don't buy it. Sorry. The discussions in the noticeboards have not brought us to consensus. Mediation will include all these that want to participate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors who've rejected the opinions given at the noticeboards will need to have a different attitude for mediation to succeed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed there and elsewhere, the idea that source that may be considered reliable is all what is needed to guarantee inclusion, is thoroughly mistaken. You need NPOV, consideration of WP:UNDUE, and good editorial judgment as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let wait to hear from other editors, and see if there is a willingness to pursue the proposed mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has rejected the mediation that you've requested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's get started then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "fringe theories" below? Does that refer to the van der Lans material? As I recall, no one on that noticeboard agreed that van der Lans was espousing a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see [41]. Vassyana (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that pretty sad, Vassyana. Hope you stick around anyway. I wish Steve all the best if he proves acceptable to all here. Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims

OK, let me re-phrase that. What is "Exceptional claims" about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims like, Rawat said his wife was a reincarnation of Durga, championed celibacy etc. That is reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community.Momento (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said that Rawat claimed his wife was the reincarnation of Durga. It has been reported in reliable sources that he said she was the incarnation. I don't think we've discussed this before. If you want to I suggest we start a thread on it. Using mediaiton for toipics that haven't been discussed is a waste mediation time. The list of things to settle is already too long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is an incarnation of some previous entity is a re-incarnation of that entity. But it's the general principle of finding an incorrect source and using it despite overwhelming info to the contrary.Momento (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Durga was a god not a person. If Melton is not a reliable source then we need to discuss that. If you believe he's not reliable then please say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No one suggested Durga was a person. She was a manifestation of the supreme godess Devi, so not really at the top level of God either. Melton is excellent source but in this case he is wrong. It's an exceptional claim that is made by one or two books and repeated. If Rawat had made that claim it would have profoundly affected everything about his teachings. The idea that there is anything after life is dismissed by Rawat as useless speculation. Of all the sources that discuss Rawat's teachings, a miniscule amount claim he teaches or believes in reincarnation. And of the few sources that bother to say he named his wife Durga Ji, only a small fraction make the manifestation claim. It is an exceptional claim with a few ordinary sources. Even the ex-premies don't claim it.Momento (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If Melton and the AP both report something, I'm inclined to think it's verifiable. You're the only editor I've seen say that Melton is unreliable. Again, an incarnation of a god is different from a reincarnation of a person and has nothing to do with the "afterlife". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One could be reporting what the other said. It's a tiny percentage. And I don't say Melton is unreliable, I said he's wrong on this point. Yes, an incarnation of a god is different from a reincarnation of a person but reincarnation is proof of an "afterlife".Momento (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A) The text doesn't mention reincarnation or the afterlife. B) No source contradicts Melton. C) It's not an exceptional claim. D) Your assertion that he's wrong is just your opinion. We're all welcome to our opinions, but so far as the article goes we should stick with what reliable sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll put some in.Momento (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Will BeBack, please do not distort Melton. He said Johnson was "the incarnation of the goddess Dulga. Readers have the right to know that scholars make mistakes.Momento (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you're being a little ridiculous. I'm fairly certain there is no goddess Dulga, and the description of the goddess from Melton is clearly Durga. This is obviously a typo in the text. On a related note, a Google search of "Goddess Dulga" brings up your talk page as the #1 hit, cool and congrats! It should be noted that Google can find no other page with that term referring to a goddess however, and it begins the search results with "Did you mean: goddess Durga". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 10:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<Outndent. [E/C].

• The cracks within the "divine family" became impossible to weld after Balyogeshwar issued directives to that the photographs of his mother were to be removed from all of the centres since she was no longer divine, and in their place were to be put the photographs of his wife who was "the incarnation of the goddess Durga."
  • The World of Gurus by Vishal Mangalwadi - Page 194

• Mataji ... disapproved of his lifestyle and of his marriage to his secretary, Marolyn Johnson, whom he declared to be the incarnation of the goddess Durga.
  • Cults: A Reference Handbook by James R. Lewis - Page 122

• Then in 1974, Maharaj married his 24-year-old secretary, whom he described as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga.
  • http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eop_02/eop_02_02916.html

• In 1974 Maharaj Ji married his secretary Marolyn Lois Johnson, who he had discovered was the reincarnation of the ten-armed, tiger riding goddess Durga.
  • http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Maharaj%20Ji.html

• He pronounced her the incarnation of the ten-armed, tiger-riding goddess, Durga. Whenthe new bride refused her mother-in-law access to their Malibu estate, that was the last straw.
  • Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson - page 150

• Maharaj Ji had claimed that she was the incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga.
  • A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, And Movements by Linda Edwards - Page 278

I edited your text. For us to assert that "all other sources claim" something would be WP:OR, and just plain incorrect. See above. Plus the wire service report that I can't find right now. It would be more accurate to write that "several sources say..." rather than "Melton alone says..." Also, "claim" is a WP:WTA#word to avoid, partly because it implies doubt.

Because the issue of divinity is contentious, Rawat's purported description of his bride as "the incarnation of the goddess Durga" is also contentious. From what I can see it may have been a culturally innocuous thing to say in India about a beautiful woman. If a pastor took a wife and declared that she's "Venus incarnate" some might roll their eyes at an over-the-top compliment but no one would think that he literally meant that the pagan goddess of love was embodied in his bride. But that's not for us to judge.

The marriage is relevant to the DLM because numerous scholarly histories of the DLM consider it one of the defining moments. Some of the details mentioned in sources include the replacement of photos of Shri Mataji with those of Durga Ji, and the eviction of Mataji from the home in California. While we don't need to include every minor event in the rift we should include some of the details about an important set of events in the history of the movement. The "Durga" matter is mentioned by several sources, which is a sign of its notability and relevance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a point here being misunderstood, I think, and it isn't surprising that Randi and Co didn't look into it deeply enough. A year ago there was a site that gave information about this subject, but it has disappeared. Maybe someone better at the Wayback machine than I am might find it. Anyway, it explained that Hindus marrying non-Hindus in India was not long ago illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Special Marriage Act was brought in to allow it, but marriages made under this Act are not universally accepted, especially among traditionally minded Hindus such as Prem Rawat's extended family. The non-Hindu partner has to become a Hindu, and must receive a Hindu name. The prosaic truth is that he named Marilyn Johnson Durga Ji to enable a traditional marriage ceremony and please his family. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rawat and Johnson were married in a non-denominational service in Denver.[according to contemporary wire reports]. I've never seen any source that said they had a traditional Hindu wedding in India. Have you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the photographs. They returned to India after the American ceremony. There Prem Rawat rode a white horse to the ceremony and there was a giant feast. All traditional Indian. Rumiton (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The marriage may be relevant, but what a husband chose to call his wife is irrelevant. FYI Mata Ji left the U.S. before the marriage, Rawat didn't "issue directives that the photographs of his mother were to be removed from all of the centres since she was no longer divine", nor did Rawat "discover" his wife was the reincarnation of the ten-armed, tiger riding goddess Durga. It's pure tabloid.Momento (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were irrelevant it wouldn't be reported in at least seven sources. As for your other assertions, what's your basis for saying these things didn't happen? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were irrelevant it wouldn't be reported in at least seven sources. Because of the nature of circular references. Same as per the crazy idea that at Millennium a UFO was expected to land, or the stadium to ascend to the heavens. Pure tabloid journalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Melton engages in tabloid journalism? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh, no my friend. Repeat enough a crazy idea by irresponsible journalists and it will be picked up by serious researchers as well. The proof is simple: Prem Rawat does not believes or teaches anything about "re-incarnation", in fact, he (and his father before him) have always spoken about human beings having just one lifetime. So, how could he have claimed his wife to be the reincarnation of a goddess? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maharaji’s marriage to Marolyn was one of the most life-changing events for him. At the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, he gave his new wife a new name — Durga Ji, an Indian goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy. Peace is Possible, p.200. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying anything about "re-incarnation", that's a strawman. As for Cagan, she is not more reliable than the several scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course this absurd and tabloidal allegation is "about reincarnation." What else could you call it? Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Strawman? The text in the article reads: Several sources say that Rawat declared her to be the incarnation of Durga. An obvious circular reference, and incorrect to boot.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what several respected scholars report in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start Johnson was never his secretary, she was a United Airlines flight attendant and never worked for Rawat. How could they all be wrong? Very simple, they are plagiarizing the work of previous authors. Most rewrite what they steal, the lazy just change a word here or there to make it look original. Check it out. Of course, Randi, the respected religious scholar goes one better, he claims Rawat "discovered" she was Durga Ji. What a joke. Cagan's book has Mata Ji back in India before Rawat became an emancipated minor, my OR is I visited dozens of ashrams in four countries in 72, 73 & 74 an never saw a photo of Mata ji or Durga Ji. And those scholars who visited Ashrams don't mention them either. But believe what you like.Momento (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I, or you, believe. This has to do with summarizing reliable sources. The most reliable sources say this happened. If you think that Melton, Lewis, and Edwards are not reliable sources then please say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your memory of ashrams differs from that of Collier, who says, on p144:

• I did not share their enthusiasm for rooms whose primary decoration was a huge altar with pictures of the "holy family", Guru Maharaj Ji and his kin... Most of the mahatmas were of the opinion that not only was Mharaj Ji divine himself, but so were the four other members of his family.

So there we have a first hand report that there were photos of the mother, and that she was considered divine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a case of an exceptional claim that is unsupported by excellent sources. Like the matter of "championing celibacy", it is an unexceptional assertion supported by several reliable sources. I suggest we consider this matter resolved and strike it from the list of issues to mediate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Championing celibacy"

• Also, the guru married his Caucasian secretary in 1974 when he was 17, shocking many of his followers (he had championed celibacy until his marriage) and leading to many defections.
  • Richardson, James T., in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, William H. Swatos, ed., Rowman Altamira 1998 p.141 ISBN 0761989560
• The movement split after Guru Maharaj Ji married his American secretary and broke his vow of celibacy.
  • Olson, Carl. The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-Historical Introduction. 2007 Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0813540682 p. 345
• Since Ji had earlier advocated strict celibacy for his followers, his marriage obviously came as a shock to them. Thomas Pilarzyk estimates that between 40 and 80 percent of the ashram premies (the core of the movement) defected over this issue. p. 45
• When Guru Maharaj Ji married his secretary, after admonishing his followers to lead a life of abstinence, half or more of the core member of the Divine Light Mission defected, hardly suggesting total control by the guru. p143
  • Bromly and Supe, Strange Gods 1981,
• The youthful teacher's strong mother and mentor objected to this marriage (holding that her son had broken one of his spiritual disciplines - celibacy).
  • "Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji? " Hinduism Today' October 1983 [42]
• To get the most out of being a premie, a follower is encouraged to practice vegetarianism and celibacy as well as abstention from the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. p. 9
• Celibacy, abstention from the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and the mission's highly touted vegetarian diet are stepping stones on the divinely lit path of enlightenment. And in true Hindu fashion, the Mission acts, not as a lawgiver, but as a dispenser of advice. The disciplines are recommended, not commanded. p.40
  • Stoner and Parke, All Gods Children, 1977
• Similarly, in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex.
  • Levine, Saul V., "Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association", Marc Galanter, editor. 1989 ISBN 0890422125 p. 100

On account of the above sources, I've removed:

• James T. Richardson, who incorrectly claimed Rawat married at 17 also claimed wrote that Rawat had "championed celibacy before he married". Most scholars agree that there were no outer requirements or prohibitions required to receive or practice Knowledge.

Several writers have written that Prem Rawat championed celibacy in one way or another. While it's possible that they incorrectly describe Rawat's teachings, it is harder to argue that they misrepresent the general perception of those teachings. Based on the variety of sources, I don't think that saying Prem Rawat "championed celibacy" is an extraordinary claim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This matter (celibacy) is not resolved. Knowledge was given freely to married and unmarried people, gay and straight. Nobody ever suggested they should alter their lifestyle, and that is still the case. There was previously an option to enter an ashram and follow a traditional Indian spiritual lifestyle. That option was removed 25 years ago. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK., so we found a few sources that claim that PR advocated for celibacy, or that had a vow of celibacy. But how many of the other 100s of sources on the subject make a similar claim when describing the marriage? WP:UNDUE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that having a few reliable sources which make an assertion is insufficient? Looking over the article, there are numerous assertions made by only a single source, in some cases of lower quality than the scholarly sources here. How many of the "100s of sources on the subject" says that Prem Rawat "gave her the Indian name Durga after a goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy"? How many say that the marriage "somehow symbolized a deepening of their own relationship to him"? Those are much more poorly sourced, and directly oppose what many reliable sources say. If you are concerned with undue weight those statements are among the first that should be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I don't see any source for the material quoted above, about the "deepening of their own relationship". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it and reverted the undiscussed changes that didn't help the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We should add some material to help clarify this issue. From Pilarzyk :

Only a small fraction of the overall DLM membership has lived in organized ashrams during its short history. Others who were affiliated with the movement lived in "premie houses." These were cultic establishments organized by premies who wished to live a semi-religious life but independent of the jurisdiction of the larger DLM organization. Members in these living arrangements made their own rules and regulations rather than accepting dictates from the Divine United Organization. For example, many premie houses across the country in 1975 did not adhere to the celibate life, one of the requirements of ashram life. While premie houses were especially popular in Colorado, California, and New York, the vast majority of the 40,000 - 50,000 premies lived neither in ashrams nor in premie houses at the movement's zenith in 1973. Many lived independent of the movement within its youth culture milieu.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we already have many sources that say the majority of followers didn't live in ashrams. I've already added that married, non-celibate couples lived in "premie centers". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reporter

What's the issue with "Context and correction for "reported of underground newspaper" (it was an anarchist magazine)"? Why does this need to be mediated? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The AP reported:

• Police said Pat Halley, a reporter for the underground newspaper Fifth Estate...
  • "Guru Pie-Thrower Seriously Beaten" Los Angeles Times Aug 15, 1973; pg. 1

The UPI reported:

• The pie thrower identified himself as Pat Halley, 22, a reporter for the antiestablishment Detroit newspaper Fifth Estate
  • "15-Year Old Guru Slapped in Face by Shaving Cream Pie" Los Angeles Times Aug 8, 1973 pg. 2

More UPI reporting:

• The reporter, Pal Halley, 22, who works for the underground newspaper Fifth Estale, was listed in serious condition with a fractured skull.
  • "Guru's Disciples Held for Beating", PLAYGROUND DAILY NEWS, August 17, 1973-Page5A

Freelance journalist Ken Kelley wrote:

• Last August in Detroit, Pat Halley, an underground newspaper reporter, threw a shaving-cream pie into the face of Guru Maharaj Ji as an act of guerrilla theatre.
  • "The Mind As Devil" Winnipeg Free Press 2/2/74

Kelley writing in the respected New York Review of Books:

• Last August 7 Pat Haley, a reporter from Detroit's underground newspaper The Fifth Estate, threw a shaving cream pie in the Guru Maharaj Ji's face.
  • "Blackjack Love", Volume 20, Number 20 · December 13, 1973 New York Review of Books [43]

I don't see "anarachist" as a common description of the newspaper. Why is it important to call it an anarchist newspaper rather than an underground newspaper? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, our article on the publication, "Fifth Estate (periodical)", says that it didn't become anarchist until 1975, two years after the pie-throwing incident.

• In August, 1975 Vol. 11, No.1 declared "The issue you are now holding is the last issue of the Fifth Estate - the last issue of a failing capitalist enterprise…This is also the first issue of a new Fifth Estate." This was the first explicitly anarchist issue of Fifth Estate. The paper had been taken over by the Eat the Rich Gang., ...

So sources which call the Fifth Estate anarchist may be confused by the 1975 takeover. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, The source I have was a book rather than news wires. Let's then use this wording: a reporter from Detroit's underground newspaper The Fifth Estate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. In the future I suggest discussing these issues first before adding them to the list of items to be mediated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pending issues to be mediated

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission

Please add/remove from list - no need to sign

• Use of sources:
  • Cagan
  • Collier
  • Geaves
  • New York Times
  • Randi
  • Time
  • Watts
  • Wim Haan
• Context- what additional material needs to be added about:
  • Ted Patrick as it relates to criminal activities related to the kidnapping mention
  • van Driel/Richardson, regarding his study of terminology in U.S. print media
  • Context for religious persecution by the totalitarian military regimes in South America
  • Context and correction for "reported of underground newspaper" (it was an anarchist magazine)
• Membership numbers. Incomplete presentation of available estimates from a variety of sources
• Merging/splitting of related articles
• Use of a souce that is not a reliable source and that it is self-published (Manav Dharam and TPRF) website, to make self-serving claims, and claims about third parties.
• DLM in India section
• Exceptional claims
  • Celibacy issue

Cagan

Please don't add material sourced to Cagan that conerns 3rd-parties. I'm thinking of this passage, for example:

• During the customary 12 days of mourning discussions were held by DLM officials about the succession, with first Mata Ji and then the eldest son Satpal being considered. But before they could nominate Satpal as successor Prem Rawat addressed the crowd and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".

Cagan is the authorized biographer of Prem Rawat, and is cannot be counted to give an impartial account of a dispute between Rawat and his family. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorized biography? I don't think so. In any case, there are other sources on the subject with similar material. Just ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento has described it as an authorized biography.[44] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can any of the sources used be counted to give an impartial account? Are we going to remove Christian sources? Or some of the clearly biased scholars? The fact that there were rival claims from within his family isn't a controversial point, Cagan is just providing more detail.Momento (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum it should be attributed to one side - something like "According to Prem Rawat's biography..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? You haven't seen a need to identify the comments of Wim Haan, Hummel, van der Lans, Johannes Aagaard etc as being Christian?Momento (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in attributing the the text to Cagan as we have done with others ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cagan, among other things, is one of the weakest sources we have. It's not scholarly and it's not publishd by an established publisher. The passage in question currently has five citations attached to it. That's just plain ridiculous.

• During the customary 12 days of mourning discussions were held by DLM officials about the succession, with first Mata Ji and then the eldest son Satpal being considered. But before they could nominate Satpal as successor Prem Rawat addressed the crowd and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".

If it's well-supported we don't need Cagan (and if it weren't then Cagan would be insufficient). Melton seems to cover it so I'm going to remove these other citations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cagan, among other things, is one of the weakest sources we have. Really? A 300+ page biography? Have you read it, or that is just a wild guess? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it published by a publisher known for fact checking? Does it cite its sources? I gather it doesn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "Prem Rawat assumes control of DLM in the West" section, it says "Monthly donations fell from $100,000 to $30,000". Where does this come from? Stoner & Parke say "$100,00 to $80,000" in 1976Momento (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We all need to be careful, but I think you haven't been keeping citations next to the material they reference. I don't have the material at hand, but I believe the material you're asking about omes from "Guru following down; tactics changing", UPI, Waterloo Courier Nov. 25, 1976. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to access Waterloo Courier. It looks like a community newspaper. I think it's an unsuitable source.Momento (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced to the UPI, which is one of two leading wire services. If you think it's an unsuitable source then you don't have enough facts to make a determination. Here's what the article says:

• AS DEVOTEES MOVED out of ashrams, their weekly paychecks, previously turned over to the guru's treasury, were missed. Donations fell from more than $100,000 a month to 70 per cent of that, although Anctil said 3,000 regular donors remain. The declining income forced a decision to change operations.

As it happens, I misread the material and the reduction should be to $70,000. I'll correct it and make sure the citation is properly placed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

What happened to the lead? It has gone from poor to bad. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't properly reflect the article or give an overview of the subject. It shouldn't need any citations because everything in it should already be cited in the article. I'll do a re-write from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Given that leads are one of the most important elements of an article, it would be best if you could post a draft in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a draft: [note: this has been re-written since first posted.]

The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was a new religious movement that gained international prominence in the 1970s under the leadership of Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). The movement had three principles: satsang, service and meditation. The teachings were called "Techniques of Knowledge". Followers described the DLM as a set of practices rather than a religion.

The Mission was founded in Northern India in 1960 by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Hans Ram Singh Rawat), a Sant Mat guru and "Perfect Master" who began teaching in the 1930s. After his death his youngest son, Prem Rawat, was recognized as his successor at the age of eight. A tour by Prem Rawat in 1971 to the United Kingdom and United States resulted in branches being founded there. The movement grew quickly and by 1973 had an estimated 6 million followers in India, and tens of thousands of followers in the West along with dozens of ashrams and hundreds of centers. In the mid-1970s a rift within the Rawat family led to a split in the movement. The eldest son, Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj (Satpal Rawat), became head of the Indian branch of DLM. Prem Rawat took control of DLM branches in the rest of the world. Membership dropped and ashrams were closed in the West as Rawat discarded many of the movement's Indian trappings. It was disbanded in the mid-1980s.

The Divine Light Mission is included in discussions of the cult phenomenon of the 1970s. Scholars wrote that the effects on followers appeared therapeutic.

Any comments? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not work for me, Will. I will let others comment first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement over what's there now. If there aren't any specific suggestions/complaints I'll post it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure other editors will be able to weigh in and point to you some of the obvious problems with your proposed improvement. It has merit, but needs work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other editors"? I suppose I know who you mean. Even so, if the problems are obvious I'd have thought you could point them out in your two postings. Is it too short? Too long? Are the dates or names wrong? Does it mistate the basic tenets of the movement? "That does not work for me" isn't a helpful response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Who did I mean, Will? Can you read minds? In any case, these are some of my comments. I will be traveling today, so I will catch up later on.

• "The teachings were called "Techniques of Knowledge" these are not DLM's teachings. These are Rawat's. We are also not explaining "satsang, service and meditation" in the article, so why it in the lead?. The article says: The fundamental practices of inner peace were embodied and experienced through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience that Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge" Maybe using some of that wording would be better than the text you used there
• The text reads as if Prem Rawat founded branches in the UK and the US. Did he?
• The introduction of the Manav Daram as a "replacement" of the Indian branch of DLM seems to be original research. Do we have any sources for that assertion?
• The last paragraph with short sentences do not work well, and context about the totalitarian regimes that banned the DML in the early 1970's is sorely missing. Putting the criminal activities of one deprogrammer as one sentence alongside one sentence from scholars, is cute, but undue weight in the lead.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will, I appreciate you are attempting to bridge a chasm, but without a clear definition of terms the cause is lost from the outset. Here are my initial thoughts but without a thoroughgoing disambiguation I can't see where progress can be made and everything I seen added to this article in recent weeks looks horribly circular.

Movement

a) if there was a ‘movement’ that originated in India – it did not originate in 1960 – that was simply the date of the creation of an organisation. If a 'movement’ is envisaged to have existed prior to 1966 (death of Hans Rawat) then the ‘movement’ must be considered to have either been created by Hans Rawat circa 1930 or to have evolved out of his teaching ( cf Hans Yog Prakash Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj ) as a process between 1930 and 1966.

b) if there is considered to have been a ‘movement’ that was created after 1966 – a date must be identified for encyclopaedic purposes

c) if a movement existed prior to 1966, and a movement was created after 1966, ergo two movements existed. This requires definition.

NRM

the term NRM necessarily involves some conception of new/recent. There are no contemporary western sources for the life or teaching of Hans Rawat, thus there is no certain authority on which to base a classification of Hans Rawat’s movement as an NRM. The Divine Light Mission as related to Prem Rawat is clearly discussed by a number of authors as an NRM.

Religion

There are no sources that claim the Indian followers “described the DLM as a set of practices”. (for what it’s worth IMO such a claim would have been profoundly insulting )

Branch

This term is used by several authors, however it is not always clear whether the author is refering to a geographically separated ‘movement’ or rather simply two different organisations.

Schism

At the point of schism one movement becomes two; if schism is accepted to have happened, definition of the existence of two movements is required for encyclopaedic purposes.

Founding

This is a highly problematic term which becomes meaningless when applied to the activies of a 14 year old Indian boy in the US. Prem did not ‘found’ anything – some of his followers did (Mishler etc) and they are notable for that fact within the terms of an article titled Divine Light Mission.

Numbers

Hans Rawat had a following which did not suddenly come into being in 1960, there is no evidence of size, small or large and there are no sources which give any definition of how the Indian following developed in comparitive terms between 1960 to 1966 or between 1966 and 1973. The 1973 numbers are the base estimates and therefore, although there are comparitive numbers for the non Indian following in the years 1970 to 1973 which allow statesments of growth, those are not applicable to the India position.

Organisation

If Elan Vital is an organisation and not a movement as Jossi contends, then Elan Vital can not have replaced Divine Light Mission. In fact there was no ‘replacement’ – as already addressed at [[45]] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] to Jossi: Thanks for responding.

A) How would you describe the principles of the DLM in one long or two short sentences? There's nothing in the current intro about them at all. Obviously the intro should mention what the group believed in/practiced. If "other editors" can come up with a succinct description of the goals/principles/beliefs/practices of the DLM to plug in that'd help.

B) OK, so something like "inspired the founding of" instead. (changed)

C) The Indian branch is far larger and more authentic, though arguably less notable, than the "Western" branch. The eldest brother now runs the Manav Daram and the youngest brother now runs the Elan Vital. That much is clear. The matter of replacement/disbanding/renaming appears contentious and we should strive for the most neutral language.

D) We can drop the "banned in a few countries" clause.(done) The DLM wasn't significant in any of the three countries where it was banned. I had added it to make the intro well-rounded. As for the deprogramming, that was a significant activity that affected actual lives while the scholarly articles were comparatively ineffectual. Though I think the non-DLM activities of Patrick, et al., are barely relevent their DLM-related activies are highly relevent. (I've changed the text to drop deprogramming.)

I think that covers everything you've mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, can you please explain your statement that the "Techniques of Knowledge" are Rawat's, not the DLM's. Do you have sources for that? Your opinion is contradicted by at least one reputable source i.e. Hummel. 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To Nik: Interesting points. As you imply in your comments, my understanding of this topic is superficial. I'm sure I know less than most editors here. I'm participating as an experienced encyclopedia article writer, not as an expert on the Divine Light Mission. I only know what I read. As for your points, I disagree that the additions of the last month have been circular, though I'm not sure what that means. I do know we've added information about the "rift", ashrams, members, the Millennium event, etc., etc. I think this article is much better now than it was a month ago. As for your points:

1) "Movement"- I agree that the movement began at least in the 1930s. The specific organization "Divine Light Mission" was founded in 1960. I think both of those facts are reflected in the text.

2) "NRM"- In the West, the newness of religious movements is relative. Hare Krishna, TM, Eckankar, and some other nominally ancient Eastern spiritual movements were categorized in the West as "new religious movements". The concepts were new to the West.

3) "Religion"- I think it's important to give the follower's view of matters. It'd be idiotic to say that followers think the movement represents truth, as presumably we could say that about innumerable groups. So, aside from saying "followers think it's hunky dory" this seemed like the most intelligent statement of the "pro-" POV. I hope it can be improved.

4) "Branch"- It's ambiguous, and we should leave it that way if we don't have more information.

5) "Schism"- Same as above, let's avoid pinning down issues that we don't have exact information about.

6) "Founding"- Good point already made by Jossi. I've changed it.

7) "Numbers"- You're right that it implies the movement grew suddenly in India, though the intent is to say it grew quickly in the West. This is part of the unequal yoking of the Indian/Western DLMs. It's hard to treat them together when they differ in size by two orders of magnitude plus changing styles and personnel.

8) "Organisation"- I used "replaced" because it seemed best. Is there a better verb? "Succeeded by"?

Do those replies address your points? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better, Will. This The eldest son, Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj (Satpal Rawat), became head of the Indian branch of DLM, which was later replaced with the Manav Dharam seems WP:OR. I have not seen a source that describes Manav Dharam as a replacement for the "Indian DLM". I am not sure about the removal of the totalitarian regimes ban from the lead, but we can go back to that after we resolve the dispute about the context needed in the Reception section. I look forward to hear input from other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what happened to the DLM in India? Does it still exist? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you? I cannot find any sources on the Manav Dharam, and the sources about the DLM in India are all here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased it to "... and now teaches the Techniques of Knowledge through the Manav Dharam". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

??? That does not belong on the lead. The lead needs to summarize the main points of the article, and that information is not only marginal but irrelevant ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Indian DLM was far larger than the DLM in the rest of the world. I realize you think Satpal is irrelevant, but as an outside observer I disagree. But as a compromise we can delete the names of both successor organizations, simply saying that the DLM was disbanded in the West beginning in 1983. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. This also addresses Nik's issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Will, I just want to make sure I'm following the right thread here, have you been updating the draft above as you sort through these issues, or am I reading the old text above still? If the text above is the current version, I have a problem with the last sentence of the second paragraph. It was not disbanded, the name was legally changed to Elan Vital (and possibly re-purposed if you want to use such a ghastly word, because as we all know, EV is not a movement!). I think the last 2 sentences are relevant, and should probably be in the lead, but they seem a little chopped up and left out in the wind, can we blend them in somehow? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The right way to describe the post-1983 situation is apparently a point of contention. If we can avoid getting into it too much in the lead that'd be best. What's the most neutral way we can describe the transition that covers all of the couuntries and branches without going into detail? As for the last two sentences, they're the remains of a longer section on what we might call the reception of the movement. They could go at the end of the first paragraph. I'll post what we have to the article and we can keep improving it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted, we don't need more contention around here, however, the legal entity DLM filed a legal motion to legally become EV, no one is disputing those facts, and then a link to EV seems to tie it all up with a bow I think. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"It was disbanded in the mid-1980s, when it legally changed it's name to Elan Vital"? Although I'm not sure you can disband, and change your name to something else, you're either disbanded, or you're not... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version is unrepresentative of the article. It's far worse than the previous one.Momento (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the lead is that bad, so maybe it's the article that needs to be revised, using the lead as a guide. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it the once over and see what improvements I can make.Momento (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Will. I accept that what is there now is workable, with the exception of the final sentence It was disbanded in the mid-1980s which simply makes no sense if the object is a 'movement' or alternatively is just plain wrong if the object referred to is an organisation. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It changed its name, but it changed its nature, too. EV since '83 bears no resemblance to the vast old DLM. Some disbanding clearly happened. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) How about "It was disbanded in the mid-1980s, and a much smaller organisation, Elan Vital, took its place."? Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true in some countries, but not in India, apparently. In the U.S. the DLM was renamed. It's not a simple equation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is a mess. The first paragraph alone claims The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was a new religious movement which is OR. That the movement had three principles: satsang, service and meditation. barely mentioned in the article That the teachings were called "Techniques of Knowledge" incredibly simplistic. That Followers described the DLM as a set of practices rather t a religion ungrammatical, untrue and not representative of the article. That The Divine Light Mission is included in discussions of the cult phenomenon of the 1970s fails NPOV. And that Scholars wrote that the effects on followers appeared therapeutic. a trivial point. It is vastly inferior to the previous first paragraph which is nothing but a factual summary of the first section - "The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was an organization founded by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj in 1960 to further his work in northern India. When Shri Maharaji died in 1966, he was succeeded as guru by his eight year old fourth son, Prem Rawat (also known as Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar, and later as Guru Maharaj Ji, then Maharaji) despite rival claims from his own family.Momento (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. Thanks for your responses. Here are my replies. It's not original research to say that the DLM was an NRM. It's described as a cult or an NRM in numerous sources. The beliefs of the group are important - I'm not sure why we barely mention the basic principles. I don't understand your complaint about saying that the name of the teachings is "Knowledge". Again, we have many sources that say so. It may be simplistic, but this is just the intro. Followers, such as Anctil, did say that it was not a religion. I recall seeing it described as a set of practices. How would you say it was described by followers? The DLM was on most lists of cults in the 1970s, and was a major part of discussions about the cult phenomenon of that decade. That's shown in numerous sources. It would be a serious ommision to not mention that. As for the therepeutic effect, I'm not happy with that but I wanted to say something about how some folks regarded it as a positive effect on youth. I've also seen articles that contrast clean-cut, sober DLMers with shaggy, strung-out hippies that make the point that the members seem better off than many others. If someone else can find a better and more succinct way of expressing that some regarded the DLM postiviely then let's talk about it. As for the history, it should encompass the whole history of the movement, not get bogged down in the succession issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not get bogged down in the succession issue"? It was accurately covered in one sentence. Now it's not properly covered in two paragraphs.Momento (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text:

• After his death his youngest son, Prem Rawat, was recognized as his successor at the age of eight.

Exactly how is that inaccurate? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the sin of omission. It doesn't say "despite rival claims from his own family". Without disclosing that there was a challenge for succession on Hans's death, the rift you talk about looks like something that started in the U.S.Momento (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much in the article about that. What's our source for it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Merged lead

Merged last two versions of lead. Removed cites to article as per WillBeBack's example. Added Millennium to lead.Momento (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a merge - that's pretty much a reversion to the version that was there before, the one that Jossi and I complained about. The recent version that was added was the result of the input from several users. Unless you can explain how the changes were an improvement I'm going to restore the consensus version that we worked out here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You made changes to the Lead that Jossi complained about on April 29, you made further changes on the 30th that were not accepted, a draft that wasn't acceptable, I made complaints on May 1. There has been no consensus. I added material about "rival claims", "Millennium", "control of DLM", "described Shri Hans" all clear improvements and removed material about "therapeutic claim", simplistic "three principles" and "practices" "NRM" OR and "cult" which were either incorrect or undue weight. It is much better now.Momento (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Jossi complaining about the lead - he complained about the intro. Why did you remove the text saying it was a new religious movement? Or that it was discussed as part of the cult phenomenon? The old version you restored isn't neutral regarding the Prem/Satpal rivalry. Why is mentioning the actual beliefs of the group "undue weight"? Are the beliefs unimportant? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the lead? It has gone from poor to bad. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC). When Shri Hans founded DLM it wasn't a NRM, his teachings may be a NRM but he created DLM was an organizing structure of people who followed his beliefs. The "beliefs" you quote a Rawat's teachings, DLM had no independent teachings or beliefs. The Satpal/PremPal rivalry reports the source.Momento (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making two assertions: a) that the DLM's teachings, beginning with its founding in 1960, are Prem Rawat's teachings. Why aren't they Hans Ji's teachings? b) that the DLM was not a NRM. There are numerous sources that refer to the DLM as a NRM or even a cult. It is in that context that the group is notable. It's inappropriate to leave the main claims of notability out of the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A) I did not make that assertion. Any teachings before 66 were obviously SH's. B) Who refers to pre-66 Indian DLM as an NRM? DLM is only notable because of Rawat.Momento (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any response on the NRM issue. It is abundantly clear that the group is categorized as an NRM, and that is the source of its notability. I'm going to reinsert it into the lead unless someone can give a good argument in opposition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: While it consistently denied being a religion it was often labelled a new religious movement, sect, or cult ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be a "new" RM to some people but most scholars agree that SH's and PR's teachings came from the 13th century Sant tradition. You can put that in the lead if you want to. Momento (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second draft to accomodate your point (I assume it's sourceable): The movement, which traced its origins to the 13th century Sant tradition in India, was often labelled a new religious movement, sect, or cult in the West.

That covers the different perceptions in India versus the West. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If by movement you mean DLM, it traces its origins all the way back to 1960. If you mean SH's teachings, the movement doesn't "trace their origins", scholars do. But this is beside the point, DLM is a co-ordinating organization. It has no beliefs or teachings, it is a tool for Shri Hans and then PR's to spread their teachings.Momento (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to address that complexity, also mentioned by Nik2 in another thread, I've modified it to:

• The movement, which derived from the 13th century Sant tradition in India, ...

Are there better phrase than "derived from" - "inspired by", "influenced by", "based on", "followed"?

Also, I work on the intro some more. The "rivals" and "defied mother" are thinly sourced and too contentious for the intro - we just need to gve the main points. In that same vein I tried to make the lead sentence more inclusive of the claim to notability of the group. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

---

It also introduces unsourced material - what's the source for the presence of rivals to the succssion? What's the source for DUO? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fahlbusch E., Lochman J. M., Mbiti J., Pelikan J., Vischer L, Barret D. (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of Christianity (1998). p.861, ISBN 90-04-11316-9 The honors paid him by his followers gave him the characteristic of a messianic child. These were supposedly his by nature and they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family." Cagan - Pages 82-85. I'll remove DUO until I find a source.Momento (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you quoting Cagan or Fahlbusch? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fahlbusch gives independent corroboration of "family rivals", Cagan gives the details.Momento (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote: "The honors paid him by his followers gave him the characteristic of a messianic child. These were supposedly his by nature and they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family."? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fahlbusch E., Lochman J. M., Mbiti J., Pelikan J., Vischer L, Barret D. (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of Christianity (1998). p.861, ISBN 90-04-11316-9 "At the funeral of Shree Hans, his son Prem Pal Singh Rawat [...] comforted those who mourned his father's death with the thought that they still had perfect knowledge with them. The son himself had become the subject of this knowledge, the perfect master, in the place of his father, and took the title of "guru" and the name of Maharaj Ji, or great king, a title of respect to which other titular names were added. The honors paid him by his followers gave him the characteristic of a messianic child. These were supposedly his by nature and they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family."Momento (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So is Cagan the source for Mata Ji being a rival for successor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct.Momento (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of movement origin and description

<<< This summary The movement, which derived from the 13th century Sant tradition in India, was often labelled (sic) a new religious movement, sect, or cult in the West is incomplete and incorrect. Some scholars do not agree with the Sant Mat origin, and the movement was labeled in more ways than than. Propose to change to, as per article text to The movement origins and nature was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We could preface the existing sentence with that text, but it shouldn't replace it with vague generalities. If there are other traditions to which scholars commonly point then we should include those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the article, not repeat it. The current sentence does not summarize it, it selects arbitrarily from the many competing definitions, and that is not OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can include Bagavad Gita as another influence. There are certainly sources for it. We could also include a catch-all "Hindu" influence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing / content

Per WP:LEAD (my highlight):

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

• It needs to properly summarize the article
• It should not "tease" the reader
• It needs to be carefully sourced

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead qualifies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're looking to improve the intro further, I think there are two thinly-sourced, minor details that could be omitted: the claim that there were rivals within the family, and the claim that Prem Rawat defied his mother when he first went to London. With good sources they are worthwhile in the article, but they aren't important for the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the article, and that is not negotiable. It has to be impeccably sourced, and that is not negotiable. As it stands it does neither. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Impeccably sourced? Then we'll have to delete the stuff sourced only to Cagan. That's the only material which isn't well sourced that I'm aware of. Is there other material you're concerned about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indenting edits (only a matter of form)

Dear editors, I suggest that within a thread the participating editors just stick to their first chosen measure of indenting their edits, especially when a dialogue is evolving. It makes reading and identifying easier and doesn’t look quite as crazy as moving every edit more to the right. And it might be a rare something everybody could agree on, for a start! Cheers--Rainer P. (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.Momento (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS claims about third parties

This text Satpal Rawat says in his website that his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, had "bequeathed his mission and unfinished work" to him' is sourced to a self-pubished source making claims about a third party, and obviously self-serving. We need to find another source for that material, or remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What's our evidence that this is a self-published site? I don't see Satpal Maharaj listed as the doman registrant. It appears to be published by an organization, not by a single person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying then, that tprf.org, elanvital.org and other such sites are not self-published? I am sure you would disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic is Manav Dharam. What evidence is there that it is a self-published source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious. A website of the Manav Dharam, in which its leader makes claims about third parties, that seem pretty self-serving, is what? An SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So we don't have any evidence that it's an SPS? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence you do need? It is obviously a self-published source. It is not a reliable source unless used in an article about itself. Do you have any doubts about this? Maybe you want to point out to editors here what type of source is that website, as it relates to Wikipedia:RS#Reliability_of_specific_source_types? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, we're not saying, "Hans Ji Maharaj bequeathed his mission and unfinished work to Satpal." We're saying that "Satpal Rawat says in his website that his father, " said those things. The claim is clerly attributed to Satpal. Even if this were an SPS, it's being used to report the view of Satpal. This is comparable to using a pundit's website to report their view of the president. This material is about Satpal, not Hans. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you agree that this is an SPS. Good. Now you need to look at claims about third parties and self-serving statements. He claims that his father (a third person) "bequeathed his mission and unfinished work" to him, a self-serving statement, that btw, it is disputed by all' sources we have on the subject. It is so obvious that it hurts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not agree. Saying "even if it were" is not the same as saying "it is". The website is being used as a source for Satpal's comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the source, it's not clear that Satpal is the speaker. It appears that someone else wrote it. So we should re-word the text in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that our article on the Elan Vital organization uses the Elan Vital website to make assertions about a third person, Prem Rawat. I'm not sure why we'd say that the Manav Dharam site cannot be used for information about Hans, while the Elan Vital website is appropriate to use for information about Prem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because that is an article about Elan Vital. If this was an article about Manav Dharam, which is not, then you could cite it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we using any self-serving claims in the Elan Vital article? Please point them out. I would also ask you to check the comments made at Talk:Prem Rawat when editors were trying to add information about PR's skills in computer graphics and music composition, as well as his ability as a private investor, which were removed upon claims of SPS and self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, guess who said this? WP:SELFPUB prohibits the use of self-published sources for material that is, among other things, contentious or unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that that is true. The question is is whether and how that applies to this text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It applies 100%. Unduly self-serving + contentious: bequeathed his mission and unfinished work to SatPal ... When we all know from all reliable sources on the subject that it is not. Contentious, and self-serving indeed. Do you have any doubt of that, Will? I will be thoroughly surprised if you thought otherwise, and will need to do a lot explaining if you do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding this to the list of items to be mediated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To address your concern, and the mistake inthe text, I've rewritten the material:

• Satpal Rawat's supporters now claim that he is the rightful successor to his father, Hans Ji Maharaj.

I hope that will satisfy you while still representing the dispute fairly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a scholarly source for the assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we set here or is there more to discuss? Can we cross this off the list? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material in that section is being challenged below. And you are missing the "now" from that text; it currently reads Satpal Rawat's supporters claim that he is the rightful successor to his father, Hans Ji Maharaj. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They do claim that. There's no indication that Satpal Rawat's supporters ever felt differently. The "now" seems superfluous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) that is your text above, including the "now"; (b) It is obvious that no one though otherwise for 8 full years, just read the satsangs of the elder brother and mother circa 1971-1972. (c) It is obvious from all sources we have (besides one that quotes what the Samriti says) that the succession was accepted as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's my text. I re-wrote it. It's not obvious what the supporters of Satpal Rawat believed. However, if restoring "now" will end the dispute over this material I'll re-add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added "now" per your request. I hope that settles it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress

I haven't followed discussions here closely for the past ten days or so, but would like to say that when I read through the article tonight, I found it had improved noticeably during that period compared to how I remembered it. Just in case that's useful to all those who have been beavering away here. ;-) Jayen466 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nothing like a vigorous debate and the friction of POVs to get an article shaped up... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The shame is that edit-warring [46], [47] is still a preferred method of engagement by some editors, and that is a pity. It seems that the 1RR probation that was negotiated and that is still in place, is not enough of a deterrent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you endorse the insertion of unsourced, contentious material? As for 1RR, I've only made one revert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not endorsing any of that. Your own edit summaries for the difss above: (1) revert confusing change to numbers estimates; (2) rv unsoureced (sic) addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced, contentious material is a good thing. If you disapprove of adding material like that then feel free to say so. When you're silent on that point, and instead attack the editor who removed it, it gives the appearance of an implicit endorsement. As for reverts, you've dealt with enough 3RRN reports to know how to count them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced, contentious material is a good thing. Sure. But you have other editors upon which you can call for help (me included) rather than bust the 1RR probation that you yourself helped negotiate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If it ever appears necessary to do more than one revert I'll remember that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

... his eldest brother Satpal ... inherited most of the 6 million followers

I recently inherited a cat. Neither I nor the cat were consulted. This will not do. Rumiton (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who added that stuff? That is an utterly ridiculous claim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be Momento,[48] who made an edit to the intro that introduced problematic material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care who added that material. It lacks a source and it is incorrect. {{fact}} added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Why did you ask if you don't care? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it.Momento (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say that Prem Rawat disbanded the DLM in 1983 - it was apparently a process that took years. The DLM wasn't renamed to the EV in the UK until 1991. In 1988 it was banned in Singapore. The other versions of the lead had the more correct "disbanded starting in 1983". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed as per your suggestion.Momento (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of attribution...

...and editorializing continues to be be a problem. We should not assert opinions as facts. This recent edit After 1975, the teachings of Hans Ji Mataraj were minimized and followers were expected to accept Prem Rawat as their personal savior.[107] Reads as a fact, and edited for effect. It should be attributed to Barker, and placed alongside all other scholars opinions on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added attribution. No problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now we need to add material on the subject from all other scholars, not just Barker. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

We're working on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DLM in India section

This section is a total mess and needs a complete re-write;

• It speaks of the DLM from 1975 onwards. What about before then?
• It poorly introduces the succession issue putting all the weight on the claims of Satpal and the mother, when all scholarly sources say otherwise. A good example of WP:UNDUE
• It speaks of SatPal continues to teach as he taught anything before
• This text Scholars that have written about the succession report that Satpal and the rest of the family accepted and supported Prem's declaration of succession for eight years. is also strangely written. It needs to include somehow that the claims made in 75 were made despite their previous acceptance, and it needs to include that the Manav Dharam does not refer to any of these claims, and that there are no references to SatPal' previous devotion to PR as reported in the press.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

That last point would be an improper assumption. We can't point out what sites or other sources don't mention. We don't say that the Elan Vital, etc, sites don't mention anything about the lawsuits either. I'm not sure that we have a date of 1975 for claims anyway. All we know is that they started before 1996, when McKean was writing.

As for your point about the emphasis on Mata Ji, if you look closely you'll see that several sections start with reference to Mata Ji or Satpal. I think each of them is inappropriate.

As for undue weight on assertions from single sources - is it now a policy for this page to disregard or minimize assertions only found in a single source? For example, sme of the material sourced to Cagan is only found there.

As for the DLM in India before 1974, that's covered in "Founding and early years in India". That section should probably have something about the years between 1966 and 1971. Did anything of note happen in India between then and 1974? I have seen only a little in sources about the post-1966 period. We can certainly add more about the lawsuits and other events in 1974 and '75. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that WillBeBack's summary of the Delhi HQ. He completely distorts what the author wrote. The author says the HQ is "like a fortress: an 8-foot-high wall with an iron-grilled gate encloses a courtyard and a complex of buildings". Will reduces this to "the ashram was described as a "fortress"! Likewise he describes its interior with "the lavish use of marble, chandeliers, and other evidence of affluence" without including the other "lavish" items like "wall to wall carpet and modern furniture".Momento (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable summary. If anything, I'd say your summary is less correct. The source says "The lavish use of marble, wall-to-wall carpets, chandeliers and modern furnishings are clear evidence of affluence", while you wrote "Its interior featured the lavish use of marble, chandeliers, wall to wall carpet, modern furniture and other evidence of affluence." What other evidence of affluence are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The question we should ask is 'what is the point of this trivia?".Momento (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no "point". It's information about the headquarter of the organization, the largest ashram of the DLM. Personally I find it interesting that it was set up to feed such a huge number of visitors routinely. The reporter discusses the evidence of affluence in the context of the Indian tradition of supporting a guru in style, which is helpful background on the history of the group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Improper assumptions aside, the section is completely off, as it presents material in manner that is inconsistent with what the consensus of sources say, and giving undue weight to a self-made claim that has not been reported in any scholarly source. We are also missing information about the RVK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

McKean, Lisa. Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement University of Chicago, 1996. ISBN 0226560090. page 54

That's a "scholarly source". I don't get this new requirement being suggested by some editors that one or even five reliable sources aren't sufficient, yet one semi-reliable source is enough if it's Cagan. What's with that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that source say? Have you read it? Does it say anything about SatPal being bequeathed the mission by his father? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't add something I hadn't read. It says, among other things, that followers of Satpal report his smooth succession to his father's position but are silent about Satpal's brother, and the scandalous family feud. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To resolve this:

• The succession stuff needs to be move to the History section where it can be added alongside other materials in the "Marriage and rift" sub-section
• We have no evidence of the relationship between the historical DLM and the "Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti". Is this a newly minted organization? when it was formed, etc. That material needs to be assessed for notability. If it is notable, it can have its own article, and if not, this article is not the place for it.
• There is missing information about the RVK.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material on the succession was moved to the "India" section by Momento,[49] and I have no objection to moving it back to where it was before, and expanding it. As I said above, there's more detail about the lawsuits, etc, that we can add. Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti is identified, IIRC, as a group formed to spread Hans Ji's teachings, just as the DLM was. As for the RVK, what sources do we have for it? What is its connection to the DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is getting more confused, it needs a re-think. Dividing DLM into US and India interrupts the chronology.Momento (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what about moving the material back to the chronology? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The same topics were re-added to the chronology previously. The "India" section had only this bit that was out of place:

• In 1975 Mata Ji took control of the DLM in India as a result of the rift and installed her eldest son, Satpal Rawat, as its head. A lawsuit in India resulted in his brother Satpal gaining control of the Divine Light Mission in India, and Rawat continuing to lead DLM in the rest of the world.

Since it was redundant I just deleted it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what was proposed. The proposal is to move the necessary text to the chronology. I am adding this to the items to be mediated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I removed (which was restored immediately by some random editor with Twinkle):

• In 1975 Mata Ji took control of the DLM in India as a result of the rift and installed her eldest son, Satpal Rawat, as its head. A lawsuit in India resulted in his brother Satpal gaining control of the Divine Light Mission in India, and Rawat continuing to lead DLM in the rest of the world.

Here's what's already in the text in chronological position:

• In 1975 Prem Rawat returned to India in an attempt to gain control of the Indian DLM. A court-ordered settlement resulted in his eldest brother Satpal retaining control of the Indian DLM, while Rawat maintained control of the DLM outside of India.[71] In the United Kingdom Mata Ji, Prem Rawat's mother, maintained her control of the DLM but the organizing center was shifted to the Divine United Organization by Rawat's followers.

There's an argument that Prem Rawat never had control of the Indian DLM, so the assertion that Mata Ji "took control" is unnecesary. The rest is already covered. What, specifically, needs to be in that paragraph that isn't already? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji was the patron of DLM and appointed Satpal as Guru in 1974. There was no court case. The court case was a defamation case brought by Rawat in 1975.Momento (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to describe the exact events more clearly. I see many sources that mention a small piece at a time. It'd be great if we can find a good source that covers the whole topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Rainer's suggestion I'm going to standardize my indents to 2 colons. If each editor maintains the same indent then it will be easier to follow who's saying what.Momento (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

City material

Material recently added by Will Be back:

Rennie Davis previously told a journalist that construction would begin in 1974 and that it would be demonstrate Heaven on Earth

The full text:

Next year Guru Maharaj Ji is going to build, probably in California a city that will use all the advanced methods of technology to ensure the air is pollution-free; cars will be run on electricity instead of gasoline. It will be an architectural wonder, and it will be -- according to him -- a concrete demonstration of what it means to have Heaven on Earth

This is becoming WP:TE, and I strongly protest this recurring behavior: Wikipedia is not a tabloid in which text is edited for effect.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? That seems to me to be a reasonable summary. How would you summarize it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable? If you really believe that is reasonable, I will start doubting your "experience as an editor ot encyclopedic articles" as you recently claimed. The way it looks, that summary is an example of POV pushing of the worst kind. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really pissed-off, Will. I will leave it to others to comment on this recurring behavior of yours. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you summarize it? I am sure that with your experience as an editor, you know how to summarize that source correctly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I did summarize it correctly, and no one has pointed out any error. Why is this section titled, "More editorializing and cherry picking of quotes?"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is exactly what you did. My opinion of course, but there for anyone to see if I am wrong on my assessment. I think that it is a very accurate assessment of that edit. Now, if you say that you think it is a good summary of that source, that it is not editorializing and cherry picking for effect, I will start seriously doubting your capacity for editing. I mean, it is not obvious? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how my summary of the source was "editorializing" or "cherrypicking", and I'd like an explanation of your accusations. If you want to give your opinions of my editing please do so on a different page. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article. I've asked you for your suggestion on how to imprive the material but instead you just repeat your charge without any support or explanation. That's not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see no tendentiousness in Will's editing - the direction of the article is largely logical and Will's edits have been consistent with that logic. The volume and frequency of Jossi's unjustified complaints are taking on the character of UNCIVIL behaviour. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior is related to attacking an editor, not challenging his/her edits. It is a privilge we have as editors to assess and discuss edits made by others. This is exactly the expected behavior in civil debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<< As for why I called this section "more...": This is the nth time I have raised a concern about editorializing by you:

• On the text you added about the bans by the military dictatorships /totalitarian regimes, and the reluctance to add necessary context
• In the omission of important context on the use of terms in US media
• In the omission of context related to the criminal activities of Ted Patrick
• The use of erratic instead of unpredictable

... and other instances That is why we have these items in Mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you keep complaining but you never justify your accusations. That's uncivil. If you want to accuse me of improper editing behavior please use an RfC, an ANI report, or add it to the ArbCom case, if you can find any evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not being uncivil. I am complaining about your edits, not about you as a person. Discuss the edit and not the editor. Is that not the case? As it seems that you are unwilling to make an effort and understand what I am expressing here, I provide a full explanation here:

• The source describes PR's vision for a city that would use green technology for pollution free environment, electric cars and novel architecture, and states that it will provide a concrete demonstration of Heaven on Earth. By omitting the context, you are editorializing the source to push a religious POV into the statement. Please correct this to include the context so that it does not mislead the readers as it is now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As it stood, it sounded outlandish and naïve. Once you add "pollution-free air" and "cars run on electricity", it sounds pretty much like the sorts of concerns that are driving engineering developments at GM and Toyota today. The solution is to add the other components of the original Davis quote. Jayen466 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the solution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We already mention the solar power, citing another source. Here's the entire paragraph:

• At the Millenium '73 festival an architect gave details of a planned "Divine City" to be built from the ground up. It was to feature translucent hexagonal plastic houses stacked on concrete columns and connected with monorails. Polluting vehicles would be banned and solar power would be used. Two sites were suggested: either the Blue Ridge Mountains or somewhere near Santa Barbara, California.[40][49] Rennie Davis previously told a journalist that construction would begin in 1974 and that it would demonstrate what it "means to have Heaven on Earth".[50] The former president and vice president of the DLM later said that Prem Rawat had spoken frequently of building such a city.[51] Plans for the city were dropped amid the fiscal crisis following the Millennium festival.[52

I don't see the point in mentioning solar power twice. Likewise the novel architecture is already mentioned. I added the parts from Davis that weren't already in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to have this in two places? Let's describe what Davis said in its entirety to avoid the problem. I am sure you can manage to do that without my help in re-writing that paragraph. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "two places"? This is the one and only paragraph on the Divine City. We can add more about it, both from Davis and from other sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

At the Millenium '73 festival an architect gave details of a planned "Divine City" to be built from the ground up. It was to feature translucent hexagonal plastic houses stacked on concrete columns and connected with monorails. Two sites were suggested: either the Blue Ridge Mountains or somewhere near Santa Barbara, California. Rennie Davis told a journalist that construction would begin in 1974 and its architecture, and the use of advanced technologies for to ensure pollution-free air such as electrical vehicles, will be a practical demonstration of Heaven on Earth. The former president and vice president of the DLM later said that Prem Rawat had spoken frequently of building such a city. Plans for the city were dropped amid the fiscal crisis following the Millennium festival.

Not *that* hard, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I already quoted that text above - I'm not sure why you quoted it again. What is the second place you were referring to? This is the only paragraph on the Divine City. It already mentions solar power, non-polluting vehicles, and novel architecture. I still don't see what your problem is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not see what the problem is, then use the version I propose above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see you were posting proposed text. I'm not sure how the difference between the version I wrote and what you wrote is "editorializing" and "cherrypicking". You deleted "solar power". Why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not see much difference, then use my proposed text. You can add solar power if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how what I did was "editorializing" and "cherry-picking" when the text you've drafted is almost identical. Please explain where the editorializing and cherry-picking come in. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, as I said before, if you don't see it, then you don't see it. I will have to assume good faith, and realize that you don't see the problem at all, while to me is pretty obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make empty accusations again. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not my style to press a point to death, but the fact that you don't see it, only means that. I can only call what I see. And I will continue doing so if I see it necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations and then refuse to exlain them. 'This is the nth time I've asked you.' ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some of your text to the article, and expanded it a bit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted opinion by Khushwant Singh

This guy is yet another sensationalist secular journalist. By calling his weekly column "With malice towards one and all" he forfeits the right to be taken seriously. Apart from that, I was at the Delhi ashram and his claims are outrageously exaggerated. The whole place covered barely 2 acres and living and cooking facilities were minimal. The main building was the size of a suburban family home. My OR, but still the truth. If he said that stuff (feeding thousands) about the new Mehrauli ashram (and left out the nonsense about chandeliers etc) he would be closer to the mark. Rumiton (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source. This was not part of a weekly column - this was a long article published in the New York Times Magazine. The magazine received mailed responses to the article that were noteworthy for their deep emotion and polarization. But there was no correction for, and apparently no complaint about, the description of the ashram. Perhaps you are thinking of a different ashram than the one the reporter is describing. Also, though he doesn't say so, I assume that the interior amenities he describes are limited to the family's private quarters. It's possible that even if you were at the same place you may not have seen the same part if you were just an ordinary visitor. The fact that you claim the material is "wrong" is not a sufficient reason to delete neutral, verifiably sourced material. Let's add relevant material to this article rather than deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was part of his weekly column or not. He has established his reputation as a taunter of the spiritually inclined, and this statement is part of that reputation. The reference could only be to Prem Nagar in Delhi. I was never in the family home and neither was he, but the ashram was simple and spartan as they all were. Plenty of sources tell us so. Including this misleading statement would create confusion that would have to be corrected by even more additions. Rumiton (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What other, more reliable sources describe the family quarters of the ashram? As for the material itself, are you saying you think that the reporter lied about what he saw and that the New York Times printed that lie? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

An ashram is not a family situation, it is a home for renunciates. He is saying the ashram was opulent. Plenty of people say otherwise. He is famous for ridiculing spiritual groups. Draw your own conclusions. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Plenty of people say..." "He is famous for..." So you say. I haven't seen anything to confirm that. Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The ashrams were and are places of renunciation and material poverty, which is why they were criticised in the west. It is a pretty strange request for a source for that. It is an extraordinary claim that any ashram was "affluent." Regarding Singh, some quick Googling of biographies finds him described as the "high priest of journalism", but also as a "comedian", a "provocateur", a "trenchant secularist", a "naughty writer" and "the dirty old man of Indian journalism." Nowhere is he called a serious source for religious analysis. Rumiton (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He is treated as serious source by the BBC in their documentary "Secret Swami". Andries (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Khushwant Singh, one of the best -known Indian writers of all times, was born in 1915 in Hadali (now in Pakistan). He was educated at the Government College, Lahore and at King's College, Cambridge University, and the Inner Temple in London. He practiced law at the Lahore High Court for several years before joining the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in 1947. He began a distinguished career as a journalist with the All India Radio in 1951. Since then he has been founder-editor of Yojana (1951-1953), editor of the Illustrated weekly of India (1979-1980), chief editor of New Delhi (1979-1980), and editor of the Hindustan times (1980-1983). His Saturday column "With Malice Towards One and All" in the Hindustan times is by far one of the most popular columns of the day. Khushwant Singh's name is bound to go down in Indian literary history as one of the finest historians and novelists, a forthright political commentator, and an outstanding observer and social critic. In July 2000, he was conferred the "Honest Man of the Year Award" by the Sulabh International Social Service Organization for his courage and honesty in his "brilliant incisive writing." At the award ceremony, the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh described him as a "humourous writer and incorrigible believer in human goodness with a devil-may-care attitude and a courageous mind." The Indian external affairs minister said that the secret of Khushwant Singh's success lay in his learning and discipline behind the "veneer of superficiality." [50]

He's an award-winning writer and a leading editor of newspapers and magazines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh already has an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A self-proclaimed agnostic, lover of fine scotch whiskey and admirer of female beauty, he nonetheless leads a very disciplined life, waking up at 4 am each day and continuing to write his columns by hand. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Rumiton, personal recollection can be helful, but really you need some evidence to back up your assertions. The Prem Nagar ashram outsideHaridwar, as opposed toDelhi, had accommodation for the Rawat family which was certainly not in any form 'renunciate' and there is no reference anywhere to the Rawat's living in 'material poverty'. Whether either the DLM, now Manav Dahram compound at Haridwar , or the DUO/RVK compound at Mehrauli can properly be described as ashrams is an open question - the point is they have been so described historically. Of course if the description Will has quoted applies to Mehrauli then this is the wrong article for it - but Prem Nagar - Haridwar certainly had marble columns in 1972 (only my OR of course) --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that my recollections are not encyclopedic, and as I say it was a few years later when I was there. But what about the 100 mahatmas and the feeding of 50 000? Does any of that ring true? And are you suggesting there was a Delhi ashram separate from Prem Nagar that might be the place referred to here? The text below does not clarify it for me. I have seen 250 000 fed at Mehrauli, but this was way earlier. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<< Do we know which ashram it is being referred to in this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The lede of the article, which contains part of the contested quote, is here. The reference to being able, on special occasions, to feed 50,000 likewise refers to the "Delhi Ashram". The text differentiates between this and the Prem Nagar ashram in Haridwar. Jayen466 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem with this source is that it is an op-ed. I am not sure that op-eds can be used to describe facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that it's an op-ed. Those are usually 500 or 100 words. This is a much longer article (5145 words) with an interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It reads very much like an op-ed or a opinion column. And it is written not by a NYT journalist, but by some one not in their staff. An opinion peace indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, after reading the whole article, I do not see why it cannot be used. It needs to be attributed to the journalist as it is his impression that he is reporting. He was there, saw the gate to the ashram, and described it the way he described it. No big deal if properly attributed as in Khushwant Singh who paid a visit to the Delhi ashram in 1973 described it as ..... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just another case of trawling through newspaper articles until you can find "fortress" "marble" "chandeliers" and sticking them in to promote a POV. And then other editors have to find other material to correct the inaccurate impression. It's a waste of time and trivializes the article. As long as we're playing this game I'll add somebody else's ashram description as balance.Momento (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Momento. As I told everyone months ago, I researched and downloaded an archive of articles on this topic from newspapers. I certainly didn't "trawl" for articles mentioning "marble". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, Momento. If there is someone that described the ashram that way, we attribute it and that's it. Clearly, journalists, and specifically those that have a declared bias, will write in this manner for best effect. Have you heard the term "politics"? Is just that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some DLM/Ashram material to Wiki scholars [[51]]. Perhaps Will can find something interesting to add?Momento (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a description of Prem Nagar in 1970. "Prem Nagar was bounded on one side by the road to Haridwar, and on the other by the canal that left the Ganges at Haridwar. The ashram consisted of three main buildings: the residence of the mahatmas, with the upper floors reserved for Maharaji and his family, the satsang hall and the three storeyed main accommodation, appropriately divided into plain monastic cells. There was a vegetable garden, a herb garden where ayurvedic remedies where grown and a garden of remembrance for Shri Hans. Leading up to these buildings was a wide driveway lined with well tended flower beds". Sopurce David Lovejoy "Dark to Dark" Echo Publications. I've also have other descriptions of ashram architecture if we think this sort of minutiae is crucial..Momento (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You must mean

• Lovejoy, David . Between dark and dark: a memoir Echo Publishing Pty Ltd, Mullumbimby, NSW , 2005. ISBN 9780957978010

That's a pretty obscure book. No library outside of Australia carries it.

Regarding the Singh article, I assume that folks are not insisting that the New York Times is an unreliable publiction, or that Singh, an award-winning journalist, lied when describing the family quarters. I'll restore the information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Jayson Blair, despite making more mistakes than any other writer in the NYTimes's Metro section, wrote more than 600 articles for the NYTimes before being fired, we should be a little more cautious about accepting the NYTimes at face value.Momento (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Following the discovery of plagiarism and fraud by Blair, the NYT reviewed and corrected or retracted every article that Blair worked on. It's that follow-up that gives the NYT such a high reputation for fact-checking and reliability. What reputation does Echo Publishing have? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We have used many obscure publications throughout. If there is a published source that is verifiable, and the material is not contentious, why not use it? The description of the Prem Nagar ahsram should be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How can we judge the reliability of a source if the author and publisher are so obscure? Ia any publication good enough? If we had a reliable source for a description of the main ashram I think it'd be worth adding a short bit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what would be the problem in citing from a published book material that is not contentious. If it is verifiable what is the problem? Momento: do you have a copy? Could you please transcribe some passages in which the Prem Nagar ashram is described?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on this thread, descriptions of the ashram appear to be contentious. If a simple description of the interior by an acclaimed journalist requires attribution then an obscure memoir by an unknown personality requires some vetting. Note that Momento didn't even get the title or publisher right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the same David Lovejoy referred to in Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia as the general secretary of Australia, who was presumably the senior official of the DLM there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, he was the Bob Mishler of Australia and then the UK. What could possibly be contentious about Lovejoy's description of Prem Nagar. I think describing ashrams is trivia but since you insist on it, I'll insert it.Momento (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And you weren't going to mention that? We can summarize that info. There's no need to quote him verbatim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a review of the book, Between Dark And Dark:[52]

• Lovejoy,the man you see before you, a seeming mild-mannered, some would say bookish, man, is a degenerate drug fiend. The title of his memoir, Between Dark And Dark, is supposedly a line from the English poet Robert Graves, himself a deluded mushroom-loving pervert. Between dark and dark is in fact the brief moment each day in which David exists in ordinary consciousness, the consciousness which good folk like you and I so regularly adhere to.
• Despite the posh Oxford accent and 18th century prose style, Lovejoy’s book will reveal to you a life of degradation unequalled in the annals of English literature since Thomas de Quincey took up opium in 1803.
• Ladies and gentleman, I urge each of you to buy several copies of Between Dark And Dark as a salutary lesson to your children and friends as to what drugs can do to you,and for you.

And folk complain about Signh! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And this, published in Lovejoy's own paper:[53]

• It also records his university career, adventures in hallucinogens, attempts at defrauding banks, an epic trip across Asia by van on the ‘hippie trail’, competition chess triumphs and his long association with the guru Maharaji.

And folks complain about Singh! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And:

• David Lovejoy has been an undergraduate, a resident of a notorious head house, an international organiser for Guru Maharaji, a chess champion and, with his friend Nicholas Shand, co-founder of Australiaʼs most original local paper, the Byron Shire Echo.[54]

So he doesn't mind using his own paper for self-promotion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Australian humour, Will, Lovejoy and the writer are still good friends. It is kind of poetic licence to kill. Rumiton (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The folks using derogatory language about Singh are probably just using humor too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it must be said that Khushwant Singh is one of the most notable and highly regarded journalists of India. Confirmed agnostic, yes, but eminently notable. Jayen466 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

since Lovejoy's newspaper is called the "Echo", and since his book is published by "Echo Publishing Pty Ltd," it appears to me that is is self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Millenium section

This could be added for context (my highlight):

The festival had a significant impact upon both the membership and organization. Millennium gave premies the chance to have personal contact with their spiritual master and non-premies the chance to receive the mystical knowledge. More significantly, the movement incurred a large debt from the festival. This economic deficit was partially the result of poor management by the "holy family" (guru Maharaj Ji's immediate family of mother and three older brothers who made up the symbolic-organizational hierarchy of the international DLM) and the much lower than anticipated attendance. Consequently, the festival necessitated policy shifts within the movement organization. Pilarzyk, Thomas, The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have that paper? Can you send me a copy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have it? It seems that you added material from that source before. Care to explain, or I am mistaken? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall adding anything from it. I'd appreciate reading the whole text before summarizing an excerpt. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I seem to recall you adding this source to the article. In any case, I will place this later in the sources sandbox, and would expect a quid pro quo on any sources you would want used as well. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've provided quotes anytime anyone asked and I emailed you an article a while back on your request. I don't think that posting the entire article in a sandbox is wise, for copyvio reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Even for a short period? That way other editors can have access as well. We can later delete it, as we have done previously in the main article. No? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. If any other editor is interested in a copy, just let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That material is also at www.ex-premie.org/papers/pilarzyk.htm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First you ask not to post it because it is a copyvio, then you link to it. Please refactor your link to a copyvio as per WP:COPYRIGHT. I have sent you the rest, that is only the very dense stuff about Wallis theory of sectarization and the references section of that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That article has some good material about the DLM to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But the material about the role of the mother and elder brother in the poor management of Millennium festival should be noted in the Millennium section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We also have one or more sources that say Davis was actually in charge. I think we have to be neutral in discusing the "blame" for the fiasco. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just add the material we have from this source. If there is other material that casts Davis in that light, add it too. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Rift

This material could be used to explain in this section, the position, the life-style of Mataji, as well as other background

Now, worst of all, the boy's sanctity—perhaps even his solvency—are being threatened by a family squabble: in India, the high-living guru's mother Mataji, who claims to be the ultimate authority in the Divine Light movement, has summarily ousted him for "falling from the path. Mataji (the name means Revered Mother) announced that the young guru had been replaced by his eldest brother Sat Pal, who would henceforth be spiritual leader of the movement started in 1930 by their father, the late Shri Hansji Maharaj. As Mataji now tells it, the eldest brother had originally been designated as the Bal Bhagwanji (God Incarnate) by his father even before the Maharaj Ji was born. But when the father died in 1966 and Mission control passed to Mataji, she named her eight-year-old son as the only "Perfect Master" or unique incarnation of God for this age.
expanded by Will Beback
What made the Revered Mother turn against the young guru? The strains within the holy family began building when Maharaj Ji, aided by some newfound American managers, took personal control of the wealthy U.S. empire when he turned 16 in 1973. Then last year the guru wed his secretary, Marolyn Johnson, a non-Hindu former airline stewardess, and declared her to be the incarnation of the ten-armed, tiger-riding goddess Durga. Traditionally, a Hindu mother-in-law expects obeisance from her son's wife; instead, photos of the newlyweds began replacing those of Mataji in U.S. ashrams. When the Revered Mother invited herself to the U.S. for a visit recently, the guru and Marolyn would not even allow her to stay at the Malibu mansion. On top of that, an outraged Divine Light spokesman in India charges the young guru with, among other things, "haunting nightclubs, drinking, dancing." He is also said to have begun eating meat, which is offensive to vegetarian Hindus." Time, One Lord too Many, Apr 28. 1975 [55]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, incarnations. Didn't some editors recently insist that the DLM did not believe in incarnations of gods? This would put the Durga Ji incarnation matter in context - it's not odd to say that one bride is an incarnation if the rest of the family are incarnations too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An incarnation of an already existing entity (re-incarnation) is entirely different to an incarnation of an abstract quality. But it's a moot point since this is a reporter's view not Rawat's.Momento (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read the same thing in other sources - that each member of the holy family was an incarnation: the five fingers of god.

As for Mata Ji's high-living, this is context for the NYT description of the famliy quarters in India.

Other sources refer to Satpal Rawat as Bal Bhagwanji too. It seems like everybody in this family has several names or titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bal Bagwan is not god incarnate". Bal is "child" in Sanskrit, and Bhagwan is "God"., so the translation is child-god. The family is still called "Holy famliy" and imbued by divine connotations in the SatPal organization in India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Bhagwan or Bhagavan is a title used in India for any number of teachers, from historical figures such as Buddha and Mahavir to more recent teachers such as Ramana Maharshi, Sathya Sai Baba etc. In the case of Buddha, it is often translated as "Lord" ("Lord Buddha"). Now, to claim that Satpal called himself "God" is almost as absurd as an Indian writer stating that Lord Mountbatten claimed he was God. ;-) Jayen466 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the quote to avoid any charges of cherrypicking. This certainly is useful material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe interesting to note that Sat Pal (Bal Bhagwan Ji) and his brother Bhole Ji have, of course, married, too, and founded families. Nobody saw a contradiction there. It seems to be not even worth mentioning. Just to shed some light on "celibacy", which appears to be a rather western preoccupation.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that's in India. If Sant Ji had stayed in India and never left he may have had a following of millions and a stub biography in Wikipedia. However he went to the West and gained prominence there, which is why we're here at this talk page. Many details of Rawat's personna, even the meaning of his title/name "Maharaj Ji", were perhaps unremarkable in India but noteworthy in the West. We're not here to correct the historical record, just to document it. People act irrationally, or mis-perceive the real teachings of their leaders/teachers. The westerners may have misunderstood the message on chastity. If that's true it doesn't negate the fact of their perception. The job of historians is to record, not fix, history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not desirable, not commendable, not even possible to write from the same perspectives that were held 35 years ago. The past is always informed by the present. This record needs to focus the best and clearest light that is available today on the events of those times, including the misunderstandings, which should not be perpetuated, still less become the predominant tone of an article. This is not "fixing" history, it is just common sense. Rumiton (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All we should do, as Wikipedia editors, is verifably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If newer sources say that older sources were wrong then we should add that too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that, and also avoid making Wikipedia into a tabloid, and make sure that we do not perpetuate mistakes made by the4se sources by repeating them. There is a place for good judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a mandate for good judgment. We cannot say, "Well, you can't blame me, I'm just a moron. Someone famous said something, so I put it in Wikipedia." None of us can know what Wikipedia will evolve into, but these years are formative. This is serious work. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If other, more reliable sources say that the statements in this source are wrong then we should take notice. I haven't seen any such sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronologically the "marriage" comes after "Rawat assumes control". He has already done so when he took control of the biggest western branch on turning 16. The split occurred a few months later when Rawat asked his mother to leave his home in Pacific Pallisades and his mother returned to India. She heard about the marriage whilst in India. Since this article is about DLM rather than Rawat, I have given DLM precedence and put the "marriage/rift" material in the "assumes control" section.Momento (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Collier the rift began well before the marriage, but most outside observers list the marriage as the cause of the rift. Taking control of the DLM was apparently a complx action and I haven't yet seen a blow-by-blow description. I gather that Mata Ji set up a rival organization in the U.S. which presumably attracted no interest from DLM followers. In the U.K,. she was apparently able to retain control of the DLM, but followers of Prem Rawat had transfered control of the assets to another organization, DUO. And then Prem tried to takeover in India, which resulted in the legal cases. So the marriage was a single event, but the takeover took a year or more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, almost every source considers the marriage to have been one of the most pivotal events in the history of the movement. So personal details of the marriage are out of place, but the marruiage was significant enough that it deserves its own section in this article. We know what day the marriage occurred - do we know what on dates Prem Rawat took control in the West? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it was the day he became an emancipated minor. Prior to that he was a child, and could legally control nothing. Rumiton (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not so clear. If I understand correctly, Prem Rawat had no formal role in the governance of the DLM. It was controlled by Mishler, or whoever was on the board. Prem Rawat's emancipation was done by a U.S. court so it had no effect in other countries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct Will. He had no formal or legal position in any DLM. He was a "spiritual leader". He took "administrative control" of the U.S. in December 73 (controlled by Mishler etc.). In the U.K., after the split, his followers used a different organization DUO and bypassed Mata Ji controlled DLM. Mata JI as patron of DLM India appointed Saqtpal "guru", no legal battle was required or occurred. The 75 legal issue was a separate issue started by Satpal when Rawat was in India to see followers. No other DLM was affected as they were not controlled by Mata Ji.Momento (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If Prem Rawat had no actual legal control over the DLM, then why did it matter whether he was emancipated or not? It appears that the crucial difference wasn't the emancipation, which was needed for the marriage, but rather the growing assertiveness of Prem Rawat vis a vis his mother. That began before his emancipation. As for 1975, I thought that Prem Rawat initiated legal action against his brother to stop libel and defamation, though I've never heard what libels were involved, and then countersuits were brought before a judge finally threw them out and ordered them to settle it out of court. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. He needed emancipation mainly to get married but he also needed it to stop his mother making decisions on his behalf. His desire to assert himself started the moment he became guru. He defied his mother to go to the west and continued to do so. Millennium and turning 16 were the final straws. According to Cagan, Satpal started the lawsuit as Rawat was about to leave India and Rawat counter sued.Momento (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"According to Cagan" is a bad way to make any assertion. I looked up "Divine Light Mission" in the index of her book - it's not there. I can't find any mention of the subject of this article in her book. Can you point to me where she talks about the DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we say "according to Cagan". And we are not using her for a source on DLM but for the succession.Momento (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What succession? If it's not about the DLM it doesn't beloing in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that a book that describes the succession is not useful because it does not include the name of the DLM? The succession is not about the DLM (which is an organization), but about a parampara that has nothing to do with an organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with the DLM it shouldn't be in this article. We can summarize the transition in a half sentence - "Prem Rawat succeeded his father as Perfect Master" - and leave out all the non-DLM machinations for which we don't have good sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand your logic on this, as we have sources for this, and these seem to be very related to the subject. In any case, let's wait and see how other elements of the article fall in place during the mediation. I am sure we can find a way to present this information in th article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly Rawat's biography is an excellent source and it is extremely important that readers are made aware of the power struggle for DLM that occured when SH died.Momento (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DLM Australia

Momento just posted a new source about the DLM in general and specifics about the DLM in Australia, that could be used in this article. At first read, there is some interesting material there: Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#The Way Out ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are "Derek Harper & Michael McDonald"? They appear to be followers.

• It is our experience that the only workable alternative in today’s society is one that is based on an unshakeable experiential reality rather than concepts or theories. It is our experience that the only unshakeable reality is pure energy, God, Cosmic Consciousness, Truth, or whatever else you want to call it. This can only be experienced through meditation. And it is our experience that the only meditation that can put you in constant touch with this reality is the meditation being revealed by Guru Maharaj Ji.

Do we have any evidence that they are scholars? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not scholars.Momento (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe the "scholars" page isn't the best place for their text. What credentials do they have? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What credentials does Randi have? He is not a scholar either. As if they are followers or not, does it matter? Messer, DuPertuis, Geaves, and others are/where followers, and we are not omitting material that has been published in reputable publications. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If the editors of that book, though it worthwhile to include a piece by these two authors, that is the measure we ought to look at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Randi a well-known individual, and the participants at RSN agreed that he is a reliable source. Who are Derek Harper & Michael McDonald? Or for that matter, who are Margaret Smith & David Crossley? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem impervious to finding out that "well-known individuals" and "reliable sources" are two different things, and that even reliable sources need to be chosen intelligently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Derek Harper & Michael McDonald are not known individuals, and there's no evidence offered that they are writing in a reliable source. As for Randi, we already went over this in the RSN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

re Randi, I never saw your reply to my comment that the Wikipedia article on khecari mudra shows Randi to have been writing from an ignorant and prejudiced position. If he needs to be included it could only be as an example of the cultural ignorance prevalent in western countries at the time Prem Rawat began his international work. This is intelligent editing. It isn't OR, nor SYN. Rumiton (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is about what Derek Harper & Michael McDonald wrote, not about Randi. Since no one is suggesting adding anything from him to this article it's a moot point. There is a proposal to add his comments to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat", so if you want to discuss him then talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat would be the most relevant place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. That's OR. If Derek Harper and Michael McDonald are to be considered acceptable reliable sources by Jossi, Rumiton, and Momento, then EPO will also be considered as a reliable source for any of these Rawat articles. Derek Harper and Michael McDonald are not scholarly sources, they have no authority to be included on that scholarly sources page, and that blurb is less reliable than Sophia Collier's book. They are devotees of Prem Rawat and that's it. Furthermore, there's no provenance for that piece of writing to be considered a reliable source, and just because it has an ISBN number doesn't make it a reliable source. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If Wim Haan, a student writing in a Catholic college magazine, can be included. So can Harper & MacDonald. They are as credible as any newspaper reporter.Momento (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of Haan. But at least we know something about him in order to make an informed decision. We know nothing about Derek Harper & Michael McDonald, and nothing about Margaret Smith & David Crossley. If the intent is to discard the reliable source guideline then let's do so openly. I'd hope we'd go in the other direction, though, and try to improve the sourcing rather than race to the bottom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Informed decision? What's to decide? You've championed NYTimes reporters we know nothing of and that paper's reputation for accuracy and fact checking went straight to the bottom with the Jayson Blair scandal. Richardson can't even get Rawat's age right? But you include him even though he is contradicted by many other scholars. This material is a simple essay on DLM Australia in a book about alternative lifestyles. It is not contentious, disputed or contradicted by other sources. Of course it's suitable for this article.Momento (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The matter of the NYT as a source has been added to the list of topics for mediation. Essays are opinions, and opinions from non-notable people with no qualifications are not great sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be notable, Google "BETTY FLYNN Chicago Daily News" or "Ken Kelley, New York Times" one or two hits but they've been used as a source in this article. Most newspaper articles are opinions. from non notable people with no qualifications.Momento (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue Momento, the source is the New York Times, not the author of the article, he/she is merely an employee of the New York Times, the buck stops with them. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the high-end news organizations don't check the facts of articles that are handed in. They have teams of people that do nothing but follow-up on fact-checking for articles. If they didn't, they'd get sued left and right. "Most newspaper articles are opinions"...I don't know what to say about that, other than "Wrong.". And as for qualifications, if you think anyone can be hired and published by the New York Times, as a reporter, you're once again, sadly mistaken. They need to have excellent qualifications, and years of experience, to meet the criteria for that job. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to look at this [[56]].Momento (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for proving my point. Here we have a case where a reporter falsified info, his errors were caught, and he, as well as those who allowed it to continue, were dismissed from the NYT, demonstrating their integrity in the process. Yes it took longer than it should have, but they fixed it. His first errors showed up in 2000, and by 2003, he, and the management that allowed his work, were gone. If you have any evidence that some of the reporters being used as a source here are like Jayson Blair, then, by all means, let's look at that, and if necessary, remove them as sources. Otherwise, this only goes to demonstrate the quality/integrity of the NYT as a source, we're not claiming they're infallible (although our article points out repeatedly that his errors were caught, it was office politics that kept him employed, not mistakes), but I think their reputation stands on its own merits. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They fixed it? They did nothing of the sort. Blair wrote more than 600 articles that cannot be taken back. All they did was close the gate after the horse had bolted.Momento (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Crossley [57]
• Margaret Smith [58]

What is the issue with these people? Why a book edited by them cannot be used in a WP article to describe DLM Australia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that David Crossley = David J Crossley? Or that there is only one author named Margaret Smith (most of that search seems to bring up people with different names entirely). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your search results on Crossley indicate that he has no expertise in this area at all, and a strong expertise in environmental sciences. Your search results for Margaret Smith don't show any results for her at all! What relevance do these 2 bring to the article in your opinion? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The book is fine to use, with attribution. I think in the overall scheme of things, it occupies at least the same place as some of the more obscure newspaper articles we have used. Jayen466 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with attribution, in this case, is that it implies that we know who we're attributing it to. We can't say, "according to followers", because we don't have any explicit knowledge that they are followers. Now can we say "according to scholars" or "according to journalists". All we could say is "according to two people we don't know anything about..." To attribute opinions to two unknown individuals is is misleading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we agree, at least, that Derek Harper & Michael McDonald aren't scholars, and since it's apparent from the text that they ar making a personal report, I've moved the excerpt to Talk:Prem Rawat/First person accounts. The same page could hold excerpts from Susan Collier, Jos Lammers, et. al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the editors appear to have been scholars. As for attribution, all we can do is name the publication and authors, as we have done for others. And it all still depends on what we cite to it, and how. Jayen466 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that. What's our evidence that the editors are scholars? Are we quoting the editors at any point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find out much about the book, but it does seem to have a few academic citations. Jayen466 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "Lansdowne Press" in Melbourne has any relation to the company of the same name in London, but the latter appears to be a vanity press.[59] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I concluded it's two different publishers. The book is mentioned in this University of Oxford bibliography; an article entitled "New Education, Progressive Education and the Counter Culture" in the Journal of Educational Administration and History mentions that "Cock and Millikin’s (both Australians) most important writings were published in an edited collection called 'The Way Out'". (Comes up in the google scholar page for the book, as linked above; with a bit of jiggery-pokery I got more of the text to appear in the scholar search result.) So my guess – at least – is they were scholars. But it sure would be better to hold the book in one's hands. Jayen466 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bit more on the book. I have now gathered that Crossley was at Griffith University, Brisbane, "working on practical alternatives for environmental issues and social relationships", and that Smith had worked for the ABC in Sydney, The Times in London, had done a Government Honours degree at Sydney University, writing a thesis on R.D. Laing, and was at the time working as a freelance journalist. It seems they were both followers of Rawat at the time. Jayen466 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"They" meaning Crossley and Smith? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's this:[60]

• The Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia, edited by Margaret Smith and David Crossley
• The editors were followers of Prem Rawat at the time (though no longer) and so some thinly disguised attempts at proselytisation were included.
• A MAGICAL MYSTERY - A Tour Of Communal Life by Penny Watson. Penny, who became disenchanted with Prem Rawat in the 1980's, wrote this early biography as a "coming to the truth" through attempts at communal living" story. She was a particularly sweet, loveable and intelligent person who now works in environmental science doing some real good.
• THE DIVINE LIGHT MISSION IN AUSTRALIA by Derek Harper & Michael McDonald was a very positive, rosy picture of the Divine LIght Mission of the early 1970's.

And this, in regard to Lovejoy:

• Between Dark and Dark David Lovejoy
• David Lovejoy, one time President of Divine Light Mission, Australia and Great Britain is an editor of the Byron Bay Echo, a local newspaper published in the resort town of Byron Bay in New South Wales, Australia. He has written a "memoire" about his life which most people would find extremely boring but is of interest to his friends, family and anyone wishing to read about the "hippies" who became followers of Prem Rawat in India circa 1971 and the Divine Light Mission in Australia in the 1970's.

This extra information doesn't do anything to increase the purported reliability of the works. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, it is interesting to note that the source says quite clearly that "Married people, as well as single, live in ashrams and, in their case, the practice of celibacy means that they have sexual relations only with their marital partner." This makes it appear that accusations of hypocrisy levelled at Rawat with regard to his own marriage ("he allows himself something that he would deny us") may have been based on incomplete information, and stereotypical thinking. This source is well above the reliability threshold for inclusion here, when it comes to filling in detail on such matters. Jayen466 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have already said, that it's quite possible that followers, or intermediaries, misinterpreted their leader's message. It happens in every religion or teaching. This sources is probably suitable as a first person account by followers, similar to Collier. What puts it over the threshold is that Lansdowne of Australia appears to be a reputable publisher. The editors and contributors don't appear to have any particular qualifications, and have conflicts of interest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds about right all round. Jayen466 10:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that "followers or intermediaries misinterpreted their leader's message", the fault lies with poor research by the "scholars".Momento (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Carol’s old friend Derek Harper conducted the moving ceremony full of speeches and live music. The crowd heard from speakers ranging from childhood friend Joan Peachey to Charan Anand, a representative of Carol’s spiritual teacher Maharaji, to a tribute read out by Derek from journalist John Macgregor, which he emailed from Chiang Mai, Thailand.
  • "Carol Page takes her last ride". http://www.echo.net.au/archives/20_18/pdf/p05.pdf

So apparently Derek Harper is an associate of Lovejoy's. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, in the 70s the premie communities were very close knit so I have no doubt that Lovejoy and Harper would have known each other well. I understand Harper reads these discussions so perhaps he could confirm this. :-) --John Brauns (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see it appears that Lovejoy is self published. Unless Echoan independent cMomento (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Founding and early years

This text is not close to the sources: During the customary 12 days of mourning, the succession was discussed by DLM officials. Both Mata Ji and eldest son Satpal had been suggested,[3]but before they could nominate Satpal as successor, Prem Rawat addressed the crowd and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".[4][5][6]

• [4]^ Aagaard, Johannes. Who Is Who In Guruism? (1980) "During the first 6 years of the new movement its head was Shri Hans, the father of the young Maharaj Ji, who, at the age of 8 years, succeeded his father in 1966."
• [5] ^ U. S. Department of the Army, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains (2001) pp.1-5 , The Minerva Group, ISBN 0-89875-607-3. Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master and therefore he assumed the head of the Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father."
• [6] Fahlbusch E., Lochman J. M., Mbiti J., Pelikan J., Vischer L, Barret D. (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of Christianity (1998). p.861, ISBN 90-04-11316-9 "At the funeral of Shree Hans, his son Prem Pal Singh Rawat [...] comforted those who mourned his father's death with the thought that they still had perfect knowledge with them. The son himself had become the subject of this knowledge, the perfect master, in the place of his father, and took the title of "guru" and the name of Maharaj Ji, or great king, a title of respect to which other titular names were added.

The sentence needs to be re-written to better reflect what the sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am traveling so I do not have Cagan's book with me, but if anyone has it at hand, it would be good to check what is the text in the book used for source [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cagan's book is a poor source compared to those others. WE have plenty of good sources that discuss the sucession. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cagan is the main source for the above. And an excellent one. I've put in the source. She is the only one who has talked to people who were there during the succession.Momento (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't know who she talked with. If you have their names then please share them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting she made it all up?Momento (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You made a positive assertion that she'd spoken to eye witnesses. I see no evidence in her book that she'd done so. Please substantiate your assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Read her "Author's Note" Momento (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone named there as an eyewitness to the events of 1966. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What's your point. I don't see Mmeave Price, Richardson, Olson or anyone else naming their witnesses.Momento (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who said she's a good source because she talked to "people who were there". If that's not her claim to reliability, then what is? As I've noted above, she does not even mention the Divine Light Mission. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful Will. I didn't say Cagan was a "good source because she talked to 'people who were there'". I said Cagan is an excellent source. AND She is the only one who has talked to people who were there during the succession.Momento (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<< Cagan or not Cagan, the text in that paragraph does not reflect what the sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento, why then is Cagan an "excellent" source for this? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because her book has far more detail than any of the NYTimes or LATimes articles that have been sourced for this article.Momento (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento, as we have already established that Cagan's book is self-published and is only of use as a source for non-contentious information. So the fact that Cagan's book has 'more detail' is irrelevant. --John Brauns (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PIP is not self published. Cagan is an author of several books and I have seen nothing to suggest she has anything to do with MightyRiver Press.Momento (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

Please keep this thread at the bottom of the page. Start new sections above it. Thanks.

Notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Barrett, David B. (1996). Sects, cults, and alternative religions: a world survey and sourcebook. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2567-2. Beckford, James A. (1986). New religious movements and rapid social change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-8039-8003-5. Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 0-664-22259-5. Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8. Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: faith, healing, and coercion. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512369-7. Geaves, Ron (2002), From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara), paper delivered to the 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22–24 March 2002 Guiley, Rosemary (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical & paranormal experience. [San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-250366-9. Juergensmeyer, Mark (1996). Radhasoami reality: the logic of a modern faith. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01092-7. Langone, Michael D. (1993). Recovery from cults help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-31321-2. Lewis, James P. (2004). The Oxford handbook of new religious movements. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514986-6. Miller, Timothy (1995). America's alternative religions. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2397-2. Sutton, Robert Mize (2005). Modern American communes: a dictionary. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32181-7. Wilson, Bryan (1990). The social dimensions of sectarianism: sects and new religious movements in contemporary society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-827883-7.