Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4

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."
 * 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. Jayen 466 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 []. 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:
 * 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:
 * 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.
 * 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. Jayen 466 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)
 * I agree. See []Momento (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you added it, can you please remove it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why momento added material from what he acknowledges is an SPS, or why he's neglected to remove it when asked. To rememdy the problem I've removed it myself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't know it was self published when I inserted it. Thanks for removing it, I forgot.Momento (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Millenium section
This could be added for context (my highlight):

≈ 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

≈ 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. ;-) Jayen 466 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)


 * Tell me the page number where Cagan talks about the Divine Light Mission. I looked inthe index but I can't find the subject of this article mentioned in there anywhere. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:01, 10 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 ≈ 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. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look at this [].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. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 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)
 * Of course they can fix them. The NYT, like other good newspapers and magazines, regularly runs corrections and even retractions. That's one reason they are the "newspaper of record". Claiming that Cagan's vanity repss book is reliable while insisting that the NYT is not reliable is just tendentious. We've already taken this to the Reliable sources noticeboard once. I'll take it there a second time if necessary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, Will: Maybe time to take a breather? Mediation will start soon, there is no need to get all flustered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing is not a content issue so it's outside the scope of mediation. We've already been over this at the RSN. If Momento continues to make ludicrous assertions about the unreliability of the New York Times then it calls for a filing at the WP:AE. I've warned him about this before. If editors aren't serious about editing in a responsible manner, and instead act disruptively, then we need to protect the project by sanctioning them.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Crossley
 * Margaret Smith
 * 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? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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. ·:· 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Ah, here's this:
 * 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. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 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. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 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)
 * Despite many assertions by a few editors on this page that the scholars are wrong, no one has found a source to contradict them. Perhaps editors here are not familiar the "No original research" rule. We need to respect what our good sources say, and not cherry pick only those statements with which we agree. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:45, 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)
 * If we all agree that Lovejoy is self-published then let's remove that book as a source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:48, 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)
 * The text is faithful to Cagan. I will transcribe it here soon.Momento (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, why then is Cagan an "excellent" source for this? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 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)


 * MightyRiver Press is not a reputable publisher. It's a one-book outfit, paid for by associates of Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you think MightyRiver is "reputable" is irrelevant. The only issue is, is the material "verifiable from a reliable source". And the material is "verifiable" and the "reliable source" is Andrea Cagan, a best selling biographer of Diana Ross published by Random House, Grace Slick published by  Warner Books and other books]Momento (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It does matter. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This publisher has no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." MightyRiver Press is not a respected publishing house. You seem to think that books printed by university presses, and mainstream newspapers are inaccurate, while this vanity press book is more reliable. That isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan's book can and should be used for material that is not contentious. Is the material contentious? That should be the question, and it is up for mediation in any case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that MightyRiver Press has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Or are you saying that sources which don't meet the standards for reliable sources are OK for this article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, the assertions about the fmaily feuds are highly contentious, and involve living people. I'm surprised that you'd have so little regard for the WP:BLP policy, since you helped draft it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a new publisher MightyRiver Press is innocent until proven guilty. And Cagan has written numerous books without being criticized for lack of fact checking or accuracy. The succession isn't contentious. Everyone agrees that after Shri Hans died, Prem Rawat succeeded him. And 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 corroborate the rival claims from his own family and no scholar disputes it. Cagan provides details. And this isn't a BLP.Momento (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't a BLP, but Satpal and Prem are living people and so when we're writing about them the BLP policy applies. The MightyRiver Press does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Reputations are gained, and AGF does not apply to evaluaitng sources). It is not a suitable source for an article on Wikipedia.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<< All this discussion has not responded to the initial concern raised in the beginning of the section. The text as it stands now, does not reflect what the sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article text in bold. PIP page  81 "According to Hindu custom, a mourning period of thirteen days was prescribed" = "During the customary 13 days of mourning". PIP page 82 "Mata JI and her eldest son, Bal Bhagwan Ji, were meeting with senior instructors and organizers, trying to decide who would succeed Shri Maharaji" =  "the succession was discussed by DLM officials". PIP page 83 "Mataji is the one to lead us,(the treasurer had said)" + "one of the organizers had named fourteen year old BBJ as successor" = Both Mata Ji and eldest son Satpal had been suggested,[3]. PIP page 85 "Senior officers were preparing to come out and announce BBJ as the next master" = but before they could nominate Satpal as successor,. PIP page 85 "Suddenly the PA system began woorking and Sant Ji said "Look, good people etc = "Prem Rawat addressed the crowd. PIP Page 85 & 86 "They rushed out in time to see CA putting the tilak on Sant Ji's forehead.. thousands were shouting for little Sant Ji...and Mataji and Maharaji's brothers touched his feet as a sign of respect" = "and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master". Seems a fair summary to me.Momento (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is contentious material related to a dispute between family members. Since "PIP" is a highly partisan source, it is inappropriate to use for this source. Further, you're even adding material not in the source, ;ike "the succession was discussed by DLM officials". Cagan never mentions the DLM. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Contentious? Who disputes it apart from you? Partisan? Who says that apart from you? And for your info, PIP page 82 "The family and senior members of the organization, however, did not feel that Sant Ji could succeed his father"...page 83 "The organization's treasurer to advocate her case"..."master's family or the organization"..."organizors in the back room"..."arguing and planning the organization's future". PIP page 85 "senior officers of the organization were preparing to come out and announce BBJ as the next master". Which organization do you think Cagan is referring to you?Momento (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How should I know which organization Cagan is referring to? If she doesn't specify it we shouldn't make any assumptions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm not going to discuss content, but based on the publisher and author background, I would say this source, at the very least, has a partisan colour to it. It's still a step or two up from Collier, but then again, you didn't have a problem with her either. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are the results of a previous RFC on PIP when it first came out. Three out of four accept PIP material on it's own and one suggests info should be verified from another source. In this case, the succession, Fahlbusch corroborates Cagan's version that there were "rival claims" from his family. All Cagan provides is the names of those rivals, Mata Ji and Satpal. I trust we can now move on.Momento (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as we don't use Cagan as a source for this article there won't be problem. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by editors responding to this RFC
 * I'm not sure why the size of the publishing house matters. Is the author herself a reliable source? With over a dozen books published by reputable publishers (Morrow, Berkley, Warner), I'm not sure why a having a new publishing house suddenly makes her work unreliable; nor can I think of any cases where an author is considered a reliable source except for some of the author's books. If, say, Steven Hawking decided to start his own publishing house, would the first book out of that house be an unreliable source? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Jpgordon's points are well made; a reliable author doesn't suddenly become unreliable simply by being published by a new publishing house. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Revera asks "on what criteria can a first-time publisher be judged to be reliable or not?" -- the answer to that is that it has been general practice in the past to assume that books published by non-vanity publishers are reliable, unless evidence is presented otherwise.  Now, if any evidence of inaccuracy in this book is presented, we can look on books published by this press with some suspicion, until then we ought to regard them at least neutrally.  "Where's the evidence that Mighty River Press exhibits an editorial oversight that isn't 'entirely promotional in nature'?"  I haven't read the book, but I'd assume that if it were entirely promotional, it wouldn't have reached the rather impressive Amazon sales rank it currently has (or the even better ones suggested by the press releases on the publisher's site).  The press presents themselves as a serious non-fiction press.  I think, in absence of evidence to the contrary, that this means editorial fact-checking is taking place, particularly for biographies.  "Until that can be settled, and until there is some evidence for reliability, why assume?"  Why not assume? Seriously -- what is the harm in Wikipedia making the mistake of repeating (in the worst case) errors made in a book that has apparently reached Amazon sales rank #9, and is therefore almost certainly the most popular book ever about its subject?  It can't reflect any worse than ignoring the material could. JulesH 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Information taken from this biography should be verified using another source.
 * 1) It is suspicious when a writer who has published with well-known presses suddenly publishes with an unknown press. It leads one to ask: Was her manuscript rejected by reputable firms? If so, why? and questions along this line.
 * 2) Biographies are not usually fact-checked, even at reputable presses such as Penguin. These firms do not have the time or money to do this. That is why scholarly biographies written by academics are more reliable than those written by journalists or free-lance writers. Academics put their career on the line when writing a biography, so they are careful to add footnotes while journalists, etc., have less to lose.
 * 3) Scholarly presses, such as Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, University of Chicago Press, etc. are the best because they have a stringent peer-review system. Multiple scholars read and evaluate each manuscript before it is published. Awadewit 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting those Momento, though a link would have been sufficient. Those responses were in regard to a different article. As Jossi has said many times, whether a source is reliable or not depends on context. This article is about the Divine Light Mission, a topic which is never mentioned in the book. Let's confine ourselves to sources that actually discuss this topic. If you want to use Cagan in another article that's a separate issue.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad you finally bring up the need for context. Yes, context is everything. Now, in this case we have several reputable sources that describe the issue, and that do not contradict Cagan. So, what is the contention? I see none. In the context of having other sources describe a similar issue, I see no reason why to negate an expansion on these sources with details from Cagan. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, where in her book does Cagan mention the DLM, which is the topic of this article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan writes on page 61 "The first organization founded to support his work was short lived...". On page 62 she writes "In 1960, however Shri Maharaji decided to give it one more chance, and a new entity was registered in Patna, Bihar". On page 63 she writes "the Indian branch of the organization turned against his son". Thereafter she refers to the "organization". Following your concerns I have removed DLM from the Cagan quote.Momento (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does Cagan's material have to do with the DLM? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It describes how the succession to the titular head of DLM came about.Momento (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does she say that Prem Rawat became the titular head of the DLM? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * She doesn't. She describes how he became the guru. And as Melton says, by becoming the guru, he became the head of DLM. Melton says "just six years after the founding of the Mission, Shri Hans Maharaj Ji was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pat Singh Rawat (b. 1957)... Though officially the autocratic leader of the Mission, because of Maharaj Ji’s age, authority was shared by the whole family". Hunt says "The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's.. He was the son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, who began the DLM in India in 1960... When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching".Momento (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we have good sources like Melton and Hunt, both top quality sources, let's stick with them and avoid making our own assumptions about what Cagan, a poor quality source, is talking about. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We can use Hunt, Melton, as well as Cagan, providing these do not contradict each other. As these do not, I see no harm in expanding details available in Cagan's book. The assertion of Cagan being a "poor quaility source" is just your opinion, which has been contradicted in a past RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That RFC was in a different context, and yu say that context matters when it comes to deciding if a source is reliable. Cagan makes no mention of the DLM in her book. Since her book does not mention the DLM, it's unsuitable as a source for this article about the DLM. Hunt and Melton are sufficient. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about the DLM, but discusses a succession, and as such, sources that describe the succession can be used. I would argue that yours is an unreasonable argument in this case, but as it is already listed for mediation, we shall discuss it in that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "A succession"? What was being succeeded to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's making assumptions about Cagan? The summary accurately reflects the source.Momento (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cagan on the DLM
At least three of these sentences refer to the DLM. Where does Cagan mention the DLM in her book? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Mata Ji and eldest son Satpal were suggested but before they could nominate Satpal as successor, Prem Rawat addressed the crowd and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".
 * Because of his age, effective control of the DLM was shared by the whole family.
 * In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch and began to assert his independence from his mother who returned to India with Satpal.
 * Rawat's biographer Andrea Cagan writes that Rawat, following Indian tradition, gave her the Indian name Durga after a goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy.
 * Rawat's decision to marry a Westerner, rather than the Indian woman his mother had planned on, precipitated a struggle for control of DLM.
 * The first sentence doesn't mention DLM and is correctly sourced to Cagan.
 * The second sentence is correctly sourced to Melton.
 * The third sentence is sourced to Melton and I have put it in.
 * The fourth sentence doesn't mention DLM and is correctly sourced to Cagan.
 * The fifth sentence has two parts the first portion is correctly sourced to Cagan and the second portion correctly sourced to Geaves.Momento (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We can reduce the magnitude of the dispute by removing Cagan where she isn't necessary, the 2nd and 3rd sentences according to Momento. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have relocated Cagan as the source for the second sentence to the previous sentence in the text ( On July 31 after an improvised ceremony, Mata Ji and his elder brothers touched Rawat's feet as a sign of respect). Cagan is the source for "his mother who returned to India with Satpal." in the third sentence.Momento (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So now Cagan is being used for material where Melton and opthers don't corroborate her account? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentence 1. Fahlbusch corroborates "rival family claims", Cagan provides details. Numerous corroborate Rawat's speech. Sentence 3. Numerous report Mataji returned to India, Cagan gives time. Sentence 4. Numerous report Rawat called wife Durga Ji, Cagan provides detail. Sentence 5. Geaves and others report on "planned traditional arranged marriage", Cagan provides detail.Momento (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan shouldn't be used as a source for how Mata Ji and the brothers expressed their worship of Rawat. The pro-Rawat spin in Cagan's book uses "touched feet," while the Time Magazine article says "kissed."  Time Magazine is far more reliable than Cagan's biography, which is widely endorsed by Rawat and supporting organizaitons and evidence of such is the wide promotion of the book on all the various pro-Rawat websites.  Besides, it was agreed by editors that Cagan shouldn't be used a reliable source for contentious issues on the Rawat article, so the same must apply on this article.  The absence of mention of DLM in her book is quite telling, suggesting that the book is a reinvention of Rawat's life (which it is).  Sylviecyn (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourced info deleted
Why was this material deleted? It's a verbatim quote from the DLM spokesman. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The group understood itself as a "church rather than a religion". 
 * It is not a verbatim quote. You claimed in the lead that "Followers described the DLM as a church rather than a religion", presumably from this sentence "The group understood itself as a "church rather than a religion" in the Reception section. Neither is verbatim. The quote is from two officials who say "they represent a church rather than a religion". What these two officials see themselves as "representing" has nothing to do with a) what the "group understood" or b) how general "followers described" the DLM. And, of course, even if you had got it right it is inappropriate to single out such a narrow view for the lead.Momento (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so how about this: "A spokesman for the DLM said he represented a church rather than a religion." I don't think that the difference is subtantial, but I'm willing to compromise. This isn't a narrow view - it's a statement by an official of the group. It is a cointerpoint to the many descriptions of the group as a "new religious movement", "alternative religion", etc., and serves an important function of clarifying the group's view of itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between a truthful comment and one that isn't is about as substantial as you can get. As an individuals point of view you can put it in the Reception section but not in the lead. I'll find some other comments on what followers thought of DLM.Momento (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly belongs in the intro, because it's a summary of the view of the DLM of itself. Unless you have an objection based on policy I'm going to add the compromise text I drafted above. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's incorrect to describe statements from the spokesman as an "individual view". It's an offical statement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a summary of the view of DLM of itself. It's merely a comment attributable to two people in one year of DLM's 20 year existence. But you go ahead, I'll fix it up later.Momento (talk)
 * Spokesman speak for their organization. Aside from officials like Anctil, there's no one else who can speak for the organization. Anctil never retracted or corrected his statement, so far as I'm aware. If you know of a retraction then please share that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is so easily fixable, that I do not understand why the bickering. Attributing and not editorializing is what will save the day here, and it easy. Rather than editorialize first, and "compromise" later, stay close to the sources and avoid your edits being challenged in that manner. That should become the editing principle in this and other articles: do not editorialize. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain what part of the sentence I added was "editorializing". If you can't I'd have to assume that it's another spurious charge. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was a statement by a spokesman for DLM, then that should be considered as an official statement by that group. That is the function of spokesmen. I see no problem with adding their statement. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just the spokesman- the president of the DLM is also included in that statement. If they can't speak for the organization then no one can. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's Hunt on what the movement thinks of itself - "Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full." From Stoner & Parke "The Divine Light Mission is trying to tell the world that it is not a religion. While the philosophy of the young Guru Maharaj Ji, leader of the movement, has no elaborate theology, what theology is has reflects Hinduism, not Christianity and Judaism, from whose ranks come the masses of its membership. The Divine Light Mission gives equal billing to all well-known religions and their scriptures, the Torah and all the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, and the Bhagavadgita".Momento (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those contradict the statement that you deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another draft for the intro: "Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion." That much is clear and agreed up by many sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, your version is much simpler, and to the point. Momento's blurb seems to ramble a bit, far too wordy, and is borderline promotional sounding (fluff). We don't need to waste that many words on this point. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely it's obvious I wasn't writing the lead, I was providing material for you to make a more accurate summary. Momento (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely. Still fluffy. :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

International Expansion
Momento, you have insisted on sticking to your phrase which is not backed-up by sources, and as far as I can tell, the first source you cite isn't available, its archive only goes back to 1990. Melton does not mention Rawat saying anything to his members before the attack. Please fix so I don't have to revert it again. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume because you cannot verify a source electronically, that it doesn't exist. I've seen the article and my summary is accurate.Momento (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You've seen the article? That doesn't sound very convincing...Do you have access to the article, or you just read it once and you're sure you have it right? And what's your response regarding my concerns regarding your use of Melton? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are going to assume that sources presented are fabricated just because we do not have online access to these, or any other such conspiracy theory, we better stop for a minute and re-read WP:V] and WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when you've finished re-reading them, maybe you could join the conversation we're having in some kind of constructive way? That would be helpful. Also, I'm a little concerned that you only know 5-6 policy pages, as you seem to repeat them over and over as if we'd either forgotten them or didn't know about them from the first 10 times you've mentioned them. If you're going to assume I'm not going to ask for more clarification regarding sources when the answer to previous questions is so vague then you'd need to read WP:common sense or WP:RRULE (Bookmark this, you can add it to your collection to throw at people, it's a good one!), but then he wouldn't be the first one to give a | source that didn't back up a article claim would he? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh? You are not answering the question: If you do not have access to a source, does that mean that the source is not verifiable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is another question for you: What would you say are you contributing to these articles? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Get it right jossi, until now, I was the only one asking a question, you didn't ask one above, you just threw out one of your standard protectionist rants, imo (but if you'd bothered to read the discussion first, you'd see that I've already replied to your concerns without being asked, unlike you,who, | when asked direct questions repeatedly, just ignores them). In reply to your second question, that's simple and obvious, completely irrelevant, and off-topic here. If you would like to discuss each of my edits in detail, send me a msg on my talk page, and we can discuss each one individually as time allows. As you know, or should, this is not the place for that conversation. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could Momento please transcribe the relevant sections of the source material so that we can verify it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To Maelefique: there is an online archive of newspapers that goes back a hundred years or more. I've used to to build an archive of 35 articles, mostly from wire sources but a few from local reporting. I'd be happy to send them to anyone who emails me with a request (as I've offered before). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Will, watch for an email from me soon, that will save lots of work from other editors I'm sure. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * from Sun News – Las Cruces, New Mexico - Wednesday, August 22, 1973 Page 2 - Section B – "Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody".Momento (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem jossi that you are asking the wrong person questions afterall. Momento, if that is your source, please explain where you came up with this phrase that I've removed twice... "Rawat responded by saying that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt," because your source above doesn't mention that, and I could not find a source for it in Melton either. jossi, and you really have to wonder why I have to ask questions about sources?! Or is that "close enough" to source for you? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this one? -INDEPENDENT (AM) PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM) Long Beach, Calif., Wed., August 8, 1973 - GURU SET FOR HONOR, GETS PIE IN FACE DETROIT (UPI) -- A bearded young man pulled a shaving cream pie out of a bouquet of roses and slapped it into Guru Maharaj Ji's face, then said, "I always wanted to throw a pie in God's face." The 15-year-old Indian guru was appearing before the Detroit Common Council at the time of the incident Tuesday. The council was considering a special testimonial resolution for him. The shaving cream dripped down the Guru's broad face and onto the front of his suit. The pie thrower identified himself as Pat Halley, 22, a reporter for the anti-establishment Detroit newspaper Fifth Estate. 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." Halley escaped from the grasp of guards.Momento (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's the one I/we asked for, thanks for producing that. Even with the unnecessary interruption, it's good to see that we can accomplish things and move forward. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The arrest warrant was outstanding
What does that mean? Does it mean "had expired"? Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that, at the time of reporting, the police had not apprehended the person for whom that warrant had been issued. I'm not familiar with arrest warrants enough to know how or when they expire, or if they ever expire. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's what I thought. At the moment it appears that the warrant being outstanding was a cause for their not making an arrest. I will have a look at it. Rumiton (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it would be the opposite - the warrant was outstanding because the suspects were never apprehended. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I thought...and meant. And have acted upon. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What was Anctil's full name and title?
At this stage of the article we are not told. Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why this text...
... is being removed? . Read the sources, please; and if you don't have the sources handy, ask for them before asserting "adjusted text closer to source". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an easy source to find and more detail.Momento (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was an incomplete account. I've expanded on it based on what the source says. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fifth Estate magazine?
Why is that source used in the article and asserted as facts? The publication was highly partisan and the reporter was from that magazine. That is not an RS, and there are better sources for that than this magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom is the Fifth Estate a "highly partisan source"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Fifth Estate (periodical). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be partisan, but I don't see anything on that page about it being "highly partisan". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the editorializing continues unabated:
 * The text in that edit: "One follower later stated that the assailants had been "shipped off to Europe". That is from Rampart which is not a RS for these claims. The other source, an opinion piece by Ken Kelley in the NYT, says this: "One of them, a mahatma, or high priest, charged with initiating new members into the organization. was "shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The other, an American who is considered the reincarnation of St. Peter, has eluded the law with equal success." If that source is used, then please do not sanitize it by excluding the absurd claims about Saint Peter, and most certainly attribute it to the journalist rather than asserting it is a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected it to read "one assailant". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not aware that Kelley's article in the New York Review of Books (not the NYT, if I recall correctly) is an opinion piece. Is is labelled that way? i don't see it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I should note that Momento added the source, and in doing so totally ignored the material that didn't suit his POV. Jossi has made repeated accusations that I've engaged in "cherry-picking". This is an egregious instance of cherry-picking and if jossi want so dispel the impression that he's a POV pusher this would be a good opportunity. The fact that Jossi diodn't complain about the source when Momento added it unfortunately tends to underscore that impression. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus here to support this edit: "removed Fifth Estate as unreliable per talk". Unless the editor can just the deletion I'm going to resotre the material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any material, I removed the Fifth Estate as a source because the material is supported by a better source, the Sun News – Las Cruces, New Mexico. I think the Fifth Estate falls into the "extremist sources' category .Momento (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the source is "widely acknowledged as extremist"? Do you have a source for that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no justification for this deletion I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to acknowledge that the source in this context (the attacked journalist was supposedly in its staff, and the underground status of that magazine) may not fit the standard to be considered an RS. As we have other material from other sources, do we need need it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you Jossi, do you not consider Momento's use of this source to be "cherrypicking"? You've repeatedly accused me of doing son, with much less justification. What do you call it when someone uses one paragraph as a source and ignores the next paragraph which contradicts the first one? Isn't that cherry-picking? (Something that I don't believe I've ever done.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "cherry-picking" by one, it is "good summarizing" by another :) - Now, to this specific issue, are there contradictions between these sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody who thinks that is good summarizing is not suited to be an encyclopedia editor. The fact that you excuse Momento's behavior with a laugh while attacking me for minor errors is an indication that you're only interested in pushing a POV here, not in achieving a neutral article. I'm very disappointed with your response. It destroys your credibility when it comes to complaining about editors who aren't students of Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where I have excused Momento's behavior? I have not. You may be reading too much into my comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You excused it when you called it "good summarizing". If that's not what you meant can you please explain what you did mean. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Eye witness trumps all"
An editor recently asserted that "Eye witness trumps all", comparing Collier's report of a remark by a living third-party to an Associated Press report. If we decide that Collier is a reliable source for this comment, then Collier is also a reliable source for other quotes from Davis, et al. My impression is that using memoirs as sources for living 3rd parties is discouraged. I suggest that we only use Collier as a source for her own opinions, if at all. On the other hand, if we decide to treat her as a reliabkle source then I expect to use her extensively because she covers topics and perspectives that no one else does. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What an extraordinary comment. It isn't a "remark" by a living third-party. "And reserved 22,000 hotel beds", is Collier's description of what she experienced [].Momento (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, I'm sure the editor in question is already embarrassed enough after having said that in the first place. I'm not sure that naming a section with that ridiculous statement is particularly civil of you. I think we all know the reliability of eyewitnesses is pretty poor (see "Case Studies" subsection for the short read). We should just wait and see what Steve says about that editor's favorite drug addict's memoirs. If she's out, we'll just redo those sections of the article. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a ridiculous statement M, and as you can see it was coined by Will .Momento (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned. For example in the Millennium section we have used the prestigious New York Times as a source. Once with "Oz in the Astrodome by Ted Morgan, New York Times" and then with “Guru's Followers Cheer 'Millennium' in Festivities in Astrodome", by Eleanor Blau also from the New York Times". Morgan claims Rawat sat on a stage "300 feet off the ground". Blau claims Rawat sat on the top level of "35-foot-high stage". Clearly they can't both be right, so who do we believe, the New York Times or the New York Times. Further research shows that "the ceiling is 208 feet (63.4 m) above the playing surface", so obviously Morgan is not reliable in this instance. Ergo, just because a prestigious newspaper makes a claim is no guarantee the claim is right. Independent sources with more knowledge of the subject, written in more detail and more balance are often going to be more accurate than a newspaper article.Momento (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in this context, why is Collier more accurate? Will you object if I use Collier for other quotes from Davis? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Collier is not involved in this example, it's just a quick demonstration of the fallibility of even the best newspapers. As for using Collier for other quotes from Davis, don't ask me, Wiki policy and guidelines are clear.Momento (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says that newspapers are among the most reliable sources. Yet you insist that Collier is more reliable, so reliable that her statements "trump all" other sources. If there's no disagreement that Collier is a reliable source then I'll start adding more material from her book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why all this back and forth? If there are competing/contradicting sources, we describe them all per WP:NPOV. As I hope we all know by now, WP:V does not stand alone. We ought to look at sources within the constrains of WP:NPOV, and without overreaching into OR territory when summarizing them. Do we have competing viewpoints here? I don't see that... I see sources that when presented together provide an NPOV view of the subject. Per the ArbCom decision (my highlight):
 * The neutral point of view's requirement that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesized merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, do you agree with Momento that Collier is a reliable source for Davis's comments? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, given the ArbCom deciions quoted above, doesn't Jossi think that an AP report is "the best and most reputable source" in comparison to a memoir reporting on a 3rd-party? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am arguing that there is no harm in presenting all significant viewpoints on a subject. Is there such a problem in including all these sources so that an accurate picture can be presented to our readers? Sometimes the only way to reach a NPOV is by doing exactly that. In addition, mistakes and ambiguities in sources, can be alleviated by virtue of providing all these viewpoints to alert our users that there are competing viewpoints. That is NPOV and V 101 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you won't object if I add other quotes from Davis as reported by Collier? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not play these games: I will not oblige as in previous instances that you have tried them. My argument is that in this specific case when we have multiple sources describing a specific aspect, there is no harm in using the sources we have. If there is a harm in using these sources to provide an NPOV presentation of this ascpect, I am willing to listen to arguments to that effect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, Momento deleted a newspaper account, claiming that Collier is more accurate. Do you endorse that edit? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the AP article give any indication as to where they got their figure of 35,000 booked hotel beds from? Thinking out loud here – original thought warning – it's possible that Collier just assumed Davis booked 22,000 because he mentioned that figure to her as the maximum he would expect to attend ("From my tours to promote the festival and my previous experience organizing this sort of event, I know 22,000 is all we can count on. It's a reasonable figure," I had heard Rennie remark a few days before. "If others come," Rennie continued almost whimsically, "it will be the grace of God, so then the grace of God can house them, too."). But he might have booked more to be on the safe side, given Satpal's much higher expectations. So leaving this musing aside, if the AP writer actually appears to have checked the hotel bookings figure in some way, then that would be the more reliable source IMO. As to attributing the statement of 400,000 expected visitors to Satpal, I think Collier is fine for that. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The AP implies that it is reporting statements from the DLM or Mishler, but it doesn't attribute the information to anyone.
 * It has budgeted $500,000, and expects to spend twice that, for a Ihree-day climax to the guru's third world tour in November, "Millenium '73." The mission has rented the Houston Astrodome for $75,000 and booked 35,000 beds in hotel rooms.
 * To help finance the convocation, disciples have been visiting 400 millionaires. Each receives a lush, vinyl-covered looseleaf notebook as a fundraising proposal.
 * "This is just warming up," says President Mishler, who declares that world peace is "inevitable."
 * It could be argued that Davis's quote is an exceptional claim because he's quoted elsewhere as predicting attendence of 100,000. As I say, I'm fine with having Collier as a reliable source so long as we all agree on it (see below). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Collier: Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed."
Do the editors who think that Collier is a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis object to using Collier as a source for the comments of Bob Mishler? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is a reliable source but that is an "exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources"Momento (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an exceptional claim that Mishler made that remark, as he went on recordd later saying the same thing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't doubt the veracity of what she's reporting. I doubt though that it belongs in this article, or the Prem Rawat article, for that matter. I think any number of LPs covered in Wikipedia (and editors in attendance) have gotten sloshed at some party or other in their lives. Isn't it a private matter? Okay, it may be different if it gains some special notability, but as you say, we don't need Collier to verify that Mishler said such things. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevance to this article of this material is that less than a year later the DLM was split apart among charges that Maharaj Ji (still underage) was drinking and leading a double life. But there's lots of other stuff Collier says about different aspects of the DLM that I'd like to add if she's considered a reliable source for what she's seen and heard. Do we all agree that she's reliable - are we just arguing over relevance? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent I read Collier -- I read most of what is online -- her account seemed honest and entertaining to me, with no axe to grind. So in principle I consider her reliable and neutral, FWIW. It's a personal account of someone who was there; that gives it some strengths that scholarly accounts may lack, as well as some potential shortcomings as she lacks the qualifications to make judgments informed by wider sociological or religious experience. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Collier is a reliable source within Wiki policy and guidelines, as are Cagan and Downton. Yes, Mishler's comment are irrelevant and contrary to BLP policy. All scholars agree that the split was caused by Rawat's desire for independence and came to a head after he married against his mother's wishes.Momento (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So we all agree that collier is a reliable source for everything she's seen and heard.
 * As for the relevance of this particular item, didn't Mata Ji accuse her son of living like a playboy and gave that as a reason for removing him as Perfect Master? I believe I've seen several scholars and newspaper accounts that say so.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think in an earlier version of this article we had a reference to allegations of "inappropriate behaviour", and we have or had Mata Ji's "playboy" accusation somewhere. Given BLP, due weight etc. I think we shouldn't be more graphic than that in describing any such allegations. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to quote Mishler, but this is another source which adds weight to the allegations that Maharaj Ji acted inappropriately at times and it keeps those charges from being labeled as "extraordinary claims". This is a contemporary account from the highest official of the DLM in the U.S. regarding the behavior of the spritual leader during something billed as the most important event in history. I believe we have another source that mentions Maharaj Ji slurring his words. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< So we all agree that collier is a reliable source for everything she's seen and heard. Not really. As for your assessment of "acted inappropriately" which is based on an account that someone made after a departure and a dispute, that in itself is describe very well in WP:REDFLAG. Just take an afternoon and read The Politics of Religious Apostasy for some background on the narratives constructed in these situations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what objective rule are we using that allows us to use Collier to say that Davis is a liar, but excludes Collier sayinog that Prem Rawat is a drunk? As for apostates, this book was written before Mishler left the Mission. Are you saying that Collier is the apostate? If so, why is some of her material admissible while others are not? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says Davis is a liar? The reason why we can't say Rawat was sloshed is because it's an "exceptional claim" without "exceptional sources". An exceptional claim is "a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". Millennium was covered by dozens of reporters and none of them reported that Rawat was sloshed at Millennium.Momento (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing exceptional whatsoever about the statement that Rawat was sloshed. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Davis publicly predicted 100,000 or more attendees. If he was privately predicting 22,000 then one of those predictions was a lie. Maelifique is correct that the assertion that Mishler said Rawat was sloshed isn't an exceptional claim. Mishler repeated it again some years later. As I mentioned before, I believe we have a source that says Prem Rawat was slurring his words at the festival, and just a year later his mother removed him as Perfect Master with an accusation of drinking. We've already agreed that Collier is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've discovered a contradiction in our sources, that doesn't make Davis a liar. The NYTimes journalist Morgan said the stage was 300 feet high, so is he a liar?Momento (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an exceptional claim. That's stupid and ridiculous.  Why should Prem Rawat be exempt from being described as "sloshed?"  So many people tht have been around him, including Bob Mishler, who was the President of DLM, have stated this as a fact, and it's been published in reliable sources. That Rawat has been a drinker of alcohol is a matter of public record and it's been published in reliable and reputable sources.  It's not an exceptional claim. Quite the contrary.  It's a persistent claim that premies don't want to acknowledge.  Prem Rawat's a public figure.  He deserves no more special treatment than Paris Hilton or any other public figure would receive.  It's not libel if it's true.  These conversations are absurd, btw.  Amusing, but absurd. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He can get sloshed anytime he likes, who cares. But at Millennium, when there were dozens of journalists listening to every word, there is no mention of him being impaired in any way.Momento (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So Collier personally observed that the guru's speech was slurred, in addition to hearing Mishler's comment. Later on, she describes the heavy drinking of the guru's brother, and also mentions the drinking of the guru. We've already decided that Collier is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In general the festival was a bore. I enjoyed seeing all of the friends I had met in other parts of the DLM community, but from a theatrical point of view, I was disappointed. Maharaj Ji's remarks were undistinguished, and I noticed his words were slurred. There were a few light notes, though, in the three days. As a joke on BB, someone tacked up a sign that said "Mars" around an empty section of seats, parroting the signs premies of France, Sweden, India, Spain, etc., had put up to announce their country of origin. The high point of the event for me was some beers I had with Lola and the Village Voice reporter, Marilyn Webb. As I sat and sipped, the two of them ranted about what a disappointment the Millennium event had turned out to be. (As I discovered later, we were not the only ones for whom some alcohol was the festival's high point. Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed.")
 * I could see that Raja was not taking it well. With the lines so clearly drawn he began expanding his existing fascination for guns and violence. Like Maharaj Ji, Raja Ji had started to drink. Though I love to drink from time to time, I never do so before the end of the afternoon. Raja Ji sometimes started much earlier than that. One evening I sat with him and Claudia as they drank. Slowly the conversation turned from an interesting discussion to a series of slurred comments about where do the bubbles come from in champagne. This is spirituality? I thought to myself. This sort of incident and the seemingly endless difficulties Guru Maharaj Ji had with his family were wearing me out.


 * Well, what, if anything, would you want to make of that in terms of something that should go in this article? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This festival was billed as the most important event in history, and it was a major turning point in the history of this organization. The underage leader of the group was reported to have slurred speach, to have made "undistinguished remarks", and was reported to have gotten drunk. The low quality of his remarks has been commented on by several sources. The section on the festival should mention somethng to the effect that he appeared drunk on stage and that observers found his remarks undistinguished. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if none of the other commentators opined that he was drunk on stage and slurred his words, then Collier's is an exceptional claim. Not that it is exceptional to claim that anyone drinks alcohol, per se, but exceptional in that numerous other commentators who were present did not report this.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If other sources say that he drank alcohol, then it's not exception to say that he drank during the festival. Note also that she reports both her own eye-witness account of him as well as Mishler's account. Most reporters were kept away from him so the lack of reporting doesn't mean anything. We don't follow the standard that an assertion is an exceptional claim unless it's reported in multiple sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if this is about him being drunk on stage, everyone would have had a chance to observe and comment on this. If it is about him getting drunk after the event, that is his private matter and not something of encyclopedic relevance. We don't report if Bill Clinton had a whiskey after an election rally. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, if we find another source that also comments on his performance on stage, such as saying he appeared wobbly, then the material is no longer exceptional. As for off stage drinking, this isn't like an election rally. If Bill Clinton had been "sloshed" at the most important event of his life, perhaps an important diplomatic summit, then it would certainly be noteworthy. The heavy drinking of Nixon (he was too drunk during the Arab-Isreal War of 1973 discuss it with the Bitish prime minister) is an aspect of history. Anyway, I'm not pushing any particular text. As we said above, this is more material dealing with his drinking, and with each addition it becomes less exceptional and more relevant to this article or the biography. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * with each addition it becomes less exceptional Of course it does not. That is a complete fallacy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. If there are 20 reliable sources for something it's no longer an exceptional claim - it's a common claim. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if numerous reputable news channels report that Amy Winehouse appeared drunk at a concert and gave a bad performance, then my understanding is that we can cite that, even with BLP constraints. On the other hand, if some presidential aide comments in his memoirs that Reagan had a couple of drinks after a particularly tough meeting with Gorbachev, then I would say that is private and not of encyclopedic value. If he was too drunk during the meeting to carry on a conversation, then again, like in the Nixon example you mention, it is of encyclopedic interest. But in this present case, we would have to have multiple statements from top-class sources saying that the unsatisfactory nature of Rawat's comments was, in the reporters' impression, due to the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol. Failing that, I wouldn't go near it. If multiple reliable sources say that his responses were unimpressive, I would think it is fine to say who said that, and what it was they said. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we are thinking that asserting Rawat drank is exceptional, but saying Davis lied is considered unexceptional. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I am saying that someone asserting Rawat has drunk alcohol is exceptional. I said that stating that he was drunk on stage at Millennium 73 is exceptional. It is exceptional because others who were there did not report this. With regard to Davis, does Collier say he lied? I thought she said that he said something different in private than he did in his official role as PR spokesman, where he wasn't making a private statement, but making a statement on behalf of the organisation that employed him. Collier attributes the origin of the overblown expected attendance figures to Satpal. Outsiders would not have been privy to that information, and there are to my knowledge no sources with similar access to events that contradict Collier's account in that regard. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that contradict Collier about drinking either. Davis is on record as having predicted a much high attendance. Collier depicts him as lying to Satpal, and to the public. My argument is that Collier is either suitable as a source for both or for neither. As a rule, I think that using a memoir to report what living 3rd parties have said is problematic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a rule, I think that using a memoir to report what living 3rd parties have said is problematic. I agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the point. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (a) We have not established that Collier is a reliable source. We have discussed the possibility of using Collier alongside other sources to provide detail. As for the argument above, it is obvious editorializing and connecting dots and thus WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Above, you appeared to say that Collier was a reliable source for the information that she alone reported: that Davis privately undercut Satpal by predicting attendance of 22,000 despite widely reported statements that he expected 100,000. I don't see any reason why Collier would be reliable in one context but not the other. If you're concerned about synthesis we can simply quote Mishler and Collier about the drinking, and quote Collier and others on the quality of the presentations by the guru. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have interpreted me, or maybe I did not explain myself clearly enough. My argument was that if we have sources that address a specific subject, it may be appropriate to use another source to expand on these if these add more detail to what is being presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also ask you to thread carefully in making negative assertions about a LP in these talk pages. . Collier did not refer to anyone "being a drunk". Please cool it and be careful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue above,, is one in which Collier reports comments by Davis that contradict his statements in other places. Momento asserted that Collier was more accurate than a newspaper account. I asked everyone here if that was appropriate and you replied "I am arguing that there is no harm in presenting all significant viewpoints on a subject." Do you still believe that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless what Momento says or not, this is my understanding of good editorial judgment in these cases: If there are contradicting comments and the sources are all of the same quality and significance, we cite them all. If the contradicting comments are in sources that have no parity (i.e. one source is deemed reliable and the other not so) we only cite the source about which there is consensus that it is the best source for the claim made. If both sources are dubious, we cite none. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let me ask yet again: is Collier a reliable source for this article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times one has to make a point before you get clued, Will? There is no such a thing as absolutes as it pertains to the reliability of a source - Editors need to assess context, competing viewpoints, undue weight, BLP, NOR and more: Otherwise, write a bot that searches Google Books and Newspaperarchive.com and copy paste text by keyword search. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "context, competing viewpoints, undue weight, BLP, NOR and more" are all known in this instance, as with the Davis quote. Both are of a kind, both include derogatory material on living people. Given the identical context, why is one OK and the other is not? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * why is one OK and the other is not? - None is, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can convince Momento and Jayen of that we'll be set. Until then I'm arguing that Collier is either relialbe for both assertions or for neither. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As per above – I accept the point. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Renunciate Order
I found a source which mentions a "Renunciate Order" - is that another name for people who lived in ashrams? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Sannyassin. That is the name given in India to these people that renunciate and join an ashram. See also Swarupanand that explains the difference between a sannyassin and a householder. Not sure that it applies to the Westerners that joined ashrams, though. What is the source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A former unpaid financial analyst at the Denver, Colo., headquarters of the Divine Light, Michael Garson, 35, testified Thursday, "So far as I could see, the whole function of the organization was to provide an opulent existence for the Maharaj Ji."
 * Divine Light Mission press releases that claim a U.S. membership of 50,000 and a worldwide membership of six million "are grossly exaggerated," Mr. Garson said. "I can say from having recently examined membership records ... that there are no more than 17,000 names recorded as followers of which, at the very best, 10,000 are active in'any way. "There is what is referred to as the Renunciate Order, that is, followers of Guru Maharaj Ji who have taken vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. The membership in this order is 572," he said.
 * "Riches Called Goal Of 'Divine Light'", (CP), WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, MARCH 24, 1975
 * I assume those figures are for the U.S. Geaves has a different account:
 * The mahatmas, or members of the renuncíate order begun by his father, were largely responsible for teaching the four techniques of self-knowledge to those interested.
 * "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond" Ron Geaves
 * On the web I find this page: which purports to be the ashram manual, AKA "The Code of the Renunciate Order of Divine Light Mission". It's not clear that these three sources are speaking of the same group. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of definition the Geaves reference is anomlous; the entitlement to teach the meditation was certainly not automatically confered upon the western ashram residents. The resolution of the anomally is that the Mahatmas were indeed structured as a religious order by Hans Rawat, so Geaves is correct, but the creation of ashrams outside of India was not based on existing precedents and the western ashram residents therefore constituted a new and 'different' 'renunciate order'. As far as I know there are no sources that clearly define this lack (or otherwise) of continuity between the Indian/western renunciate orders. For those who might find it helpful as background, the only (now apostate)western 'Mahatma' has recently stated that the :| 'ashram manual' was cobbled together in a backroom in London over a weekend. It is precisely this type of difference between the Indian and non Indian organisations that IMO requires separate articles to achieve any kind of clarity. Under the current structure I can't see how the terminologically contradictory sources can all be used effectively . --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did Geaves say anyone in the ashram could teach the techniques? As you say, he got it wrong if he did. And I agree with you that the documents we have do not produce a coherent picture of the way the western ashrams developed. I always found that they differed greatly from country to country, and even town to town, and this view of the way some "rules" were "cobbled together" seems very plausible to me. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not clear in the way I presented the position. Geaves is correct (he does not say that western ashramites could teach the techniques) but the Geaves text is anomolous in relation to the other two sources; those sources are concerned with the 'western' renunciate order,while Geaves is refering to the renunciate status of the Mahatmas. Thus there are two distinct categories of 'renunciate' which are/were not related (or relatable) to one another.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Names of works
Removed two names of works, to make it consistent with the other 140+ sources used in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect Master
I took off the double brackets because it led to a disambiguation page, which isn't very helpful to the reader. Better to pick which "perfect master" best fits the bill, and link to that one. I'd have done it myself, but I suspect whichever choice I made would invariably be incorrect. Mael-Num (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a "disambiguation plus" page. One of the definitions there appears relevant:
 * In Surat Shabd Yoga, Sant Mat and Advait Mat the living Perfect Master is considered the path to God-realization.
 * Other than that, the closest link appears to be "satguru". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, they both seem pretty close to the mark to me. Also, Meher Baba's definition from his book seems (at least to me) conceptually very similar.  As DLM is descendant from Sant Mat traditions, go with that one? Mael-Num (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see...the difference between a disambiguation page and a plussed one now. So, assuming someone clicks the link to find out what the deuce a "perfect master" is, then it would probably be a better idea to link to satguru, as the sant mat page doesn't even have the words "perfect master" in the article (go figure).  Mael-Num (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It does now: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure which wikilink would be best Sant Mat or Sadguru, so I would prefer to keep it wikilinked to the perfect master page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I can see with that is, if someone's clicking on a term, it's probably because they don't understand what it is, or they simply want to know more. If you drop them into a disambiguation page, it kind of leaves them stranded exactly where they are: looking for more info and having to sort out where to go next.  They could do that with Google.  I think it's more encyclopedic (or at least nicer) to give `em a nudge in the right direction.  If you think linking up to your addition is a better fit, that would be fine by me.  Mael-Num (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go ahead, and do the honors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Raj Vidya Bhavan
Please note that "Raj Vidya Bhavan", per Geaves, is the name of the registered organization that superseded the defunct DUO. "Raj Vidya Kender" (kender=center") is one of 2,500 centers (''kendras') in India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DUO remained in India until it was replaced by Raj Vidya Bhavan [sic]. Why [sic] was added? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Studies of members
A summary of studies of members is proposed at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal5. Please review and comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's late, I'm tired, it's all in Latin, I must be hallucinating. Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, not hallucinating. The proposals that haven't been altered have lorem in them, which is the example text, yes, in latin. Hope that explains it. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Chronology"
This edit, which moved material from one section to another, appears unneccessary. Could the editor please explain why he made it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The text I moved relates to DLM before Rawat turned 16 and precedes the "Marriage and rift".Momento (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should rename the section "Rift and marriage" since some of the conflicts predated him turning 16 or marrying. Putting them into the Millennium '73 section doesn't appear to improve the flow of the article. It's better to keep that section focused on the topic of the festival.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the article is about DLM and the key point is Rawat taking control of Western DLM when he turned 16, perhaps the heading should "Rawat takes control of Western DLM". Momento (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've already tried that heading and it wasn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there was no consensus for that change I'm going to revert it. Please use the discussion page before making controversial edits. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's controversial about correcting chronology? And where is the duplication? Am I missing somethingMomento (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "correcting" the chronology, thae chronology hasn't changed. The problem was moving content into the "Millennium" section that didn't concern that festival. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The material I relocated preceded the section in which it was included. The heading "Festival" is used to cover DLM after June 73 until the section "Marriage and Rift" which occurred in May 74. The material I relocated occurred before Rawat married and therefore it was chronologically incorrect. It also relates directly to Pilarzyk's claim that Rawat''s mother was partially responsible for the financial loss. Where else can it go? And what is the duplication?Momento (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The section on the Millennium festival concerns the Millennium festival, a three-day event. We include a little on the debt from that festival, which took years to pay off, and a little about the later attempts to start the Divine City, both of which are directly related to the festival. The place where the other material is now is fine. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "...attempts to start the Divine City?" When did those attempts occur? Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I see "there was a failed attempt in 1975 to build the community near San Antonio, Texas." I never heard of it. How serious an "attempt" was it? Do other sources talk about this? Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how "serious" it was. Yes, it's reported in multiple sources, but the one we're using is adequate. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And Will, perhaps you can explain to me why you reverted my edit with "rm duplicated material, no consensus, see talk" but didn't revert your edit that was made without discussion or consensus?Momento (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Duplicate material" was a mis-statement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew that but why haven't you reverted your "no consensus" edit like you reverted mine?Momento (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean the edits to the "festival" section, you made an edit and then I made a further edit to the same material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I corrected a very bad summary. And then you added new material without discussion or consensus.Momento (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we both made corrections. If you like we can revert both edits. Maybe that would be best. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you reverted your "no consensus" edit.Momento (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about your edit? Did you seek a consensus for it? Do you have an actual problem with the edit or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wanting to establish if you had any reasonable explanation for reverting my edit. You haven't provided one so I 'm going to ask one more time, why did you revert my edit claiming it was "duplicated material" when it wasn't and that it had "no consensus" when five editors, including you, have allowed the same edit in the Prem Rawat article ? And why you allow yourself to add material with "no consensus" but revert me?Momento (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've discussed the "chronology" issue, and I explained why I undid the move. As I said above, describing your edit as "duplicate material" was a misstatement. I apologize for confusing you. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't confuse me, I knew it wasn't duplicate material. And yes, you reverted me because you said "there no consensus for that change", well, there was "no consensus" for your addition, so please revert it.Momento (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about it do you disagree with? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That you apply one rule for yourself and a different one for me.Momento (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we make no edits before consensus is reached. However, obvious uncontroversial edits may not apply here. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that won't work Steve. WillBeBack calls this a controversial edit. Perhaps you can give an opinion?Momento (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't exactly give my opinion, but examining this diff, the changes that I see are
 * 1) Content has been moved upwards, and the text has been slightly altered. If I've missed a change, please point it out. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, my objection to that edit is that it moved material from the "rift" section into the "Millennium '73" section inappropriately. While all of this flows together to some extent, we need to use sections to split the article into reasonable pieces. The Millennium festival is a reasonably discrete event, which lasted only 3 days (though the after-effects lingered on). I believe that the material in question is more related to the "rift" than to the festival. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mahatmas
I was reading through the article, and have bumped across the word "mahatma...." I think it would be helpful to include what it means in the context of the DLM movement? Hohohahaha (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've seen several sources that give brief definitions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I always understood it to mean Maha Atman or Great Soul, but I see from on-line Sanskrit dictionaries it is properly used as an adjective to mean something like "of noble mind." To me this is interesting, as in German also there is a blurring of the distinction between mind and soul (Geist) which is something pretty hard-edged in English. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the topic. What this article needs is a practical definition of the role of the mahatmas in the organization. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoho's question seemed to be about the word "mahatma". I doubt if we will find any definition of their DLM role, as different jobs were given to different guys depending on their abilities and preferences. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Price is states that it means realised soul. “In 1969 the new leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, sent one of his mahatmas, or a 'realised soul', to Britain as a missionary to win converts for his master.”  Galanter gives a functional description:  “After a period of acquaintance with the group, a potential member might approach a mahatma from the sect. These were long time Indian devotees designated by the guru to initiate new members. Although their pronouncements were often obscure, they lent an aura of transcendence to the initiation. In the initiation ceremony the mahatma rubbed the eyes of the newly initiated members, producing a series of flashes that were perceived as divine light. Initiates were thereafter-called premies, or follower of the guru.”  And also “Within a few years, the sect began to send mahatmas, or apostles, overseas to preach the young guru's inspired mission….” --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple references to mahatmas in many other sources than Galanter and Price, which are substantially more neutral. I wil gather these and present here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral edits
I understand that there is an agreement, per mediation, not to make edits unilaterally. These recent changes seem arbitrary, and undiscussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is in mediation. Many of those edits, such as fixing a link, appear to improve the article. Can you be more specific? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure: (a) removal of "standard anti-cult charges"; (b) Removal of text sourced to Lippy, which uses the term "more universal"; (c) The poor grammar use of "According to Ron Geaves, a Rawat follower and religious scholar"; and (d) removing "actively" from the sentence "he was continuing to write, lecture, and tour". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the edit summary, it seems a little, well, misleading. Just what it appears to me. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Scratch that, didn't notice there were intermediate revisions. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps inviting them to the mediation would be a good idea? <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I placed the probation notice and a link to the MedCab page in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think every casual editor needs to join mediation, but if he wants to then that's fine too. Regarding some of Jossi's points: D) "actively" appears redundant - it's not possible to "passively" write lecture and tour. C) It seems worthwhile to specify who Geaves is a follower of. "Rawat follower" is adequate, though "follower of Rawat" may be slightly better. B) The cited text doesn't include "more universal" - can you quote the original? A) "standard anti-cult " doesn't have a clear source.
 * Regarding Steve's point about edit summaries, they seem accurate. Jossi's diff includes intermediate edits but only the last edit summary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it was my misread, I amended my comment. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding A) - Momento "unilaterally" added that material here: . Oddly, he adjusted a source several sentences later to include the reference. (Better citation practices would probably avoid mix-ups like this). We can restore the material (which is copied verbatim so should be attributed). However when I checked the source I came across another assertion a few lines earlier concerning Rawat's acting like a teenager in public. Not long ago Momento deleted a reference to that behavior as an exceptional claim. If Melton is good enough for one assertion then he's good enough for the other (which was made by a number of people). I'll look it up and restore it, and fix the "standard anti-cult" material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"engaging in appropriate behavior"

 * They also accused Rawat of engaging in appropriate behavior is not an acceptable edit based on that source. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and WP:REDFLAG applies to these two protagonists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not exceptional for us to claim that Mishler and Hand said that Rawat engaged in inappropriate behavior. Their statements are well-sourced, cinluding UPI and the L.A. Times. The allegation itself is backed up by other sources, including Melton. Rawat was a teenager at the time. To claim that Rawat was acting like a teenager, and that acting like a teeanger is inappropriate for a guru, is not exceptional either. No one is currently suggesting adding the details of Rawats alleged behavior, just the fact that he was charged with behaving inappropriately. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (The details of their allegations may be worth including in the Prem Rawat article)  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  and that acting like a teeanger is inappropriate for a guru, is not exceptional either. You re certainly entitled to your opinion, but not ebtitled to your facts. A teenager is a teenager, and a guru is what a guru wants to be and or behave. We are not here to pass judgment about how a teenager should behave, or a guru should not. The issue at hand is to use the testimony of people that where fired from a position they held, and later on went on the record to make such allegations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one asserting that it's an exceptional claim to for us to write in the article that Mishler and Hand described inappropriate behavior by Rawat. I have yet to see anything exceptional about it. Mishler's complaints were widely reported, both in respectable newspapers, wire services, and in serious books. I don't know if we have a reliable, 3rd-party source saying that Mishler was fired, but if we do then we can add that detail too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, really. Mishler and Hand were pressing an enormous ax to the grinding stone. Mishler was fired after a deep dispute ("Joe Anctil, a spokesperson for the Divine Light Mission " in Denver, said that Mishler "freaked out" because his job as international director was discontinued" AP, Jan 22, 1979). They made some outrageous claims, talking about a fascination with gangsters, stockpiling of weapons, pouring abrasive chemical on followers' bodies, administering psychotropic drugs and having them beaten with sticks or thrown into swimming pools, and other such nonsense that has not been reported by any reputable source that studied the subject. Arguing that these are not  extraordinary claim, as per WP:REDFLAG is quite disingenuous strange.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can report that Anctil says they had an axe to grind. But material reported in reliable sources shouldn't be deleted just because a couple of editors find the material to be unflattering. The charge that Rawat pushed people into swimming pools has been reported independently before Mishler's interview, if I recall correctly. There'a also a similar independent assertion that Rawat closed the car window on someone leaning in to speak to him. And Melton says that people were put off by Rawat's teeange behavior. Many sources. As for your acusation that my arguments are "disingenous", that's incorrect and it's a negative personal comment. Please treat others as you'd like to be treated.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Will if you see my comment as negative. It is now refactored. To your argument, I would say this: one thing is to say that he pushed people into a swimming pool (probably a prank) and another thing is to make the kind of comments they made. Being put off by a prank, is one thing. Making allegations of physical abuse, as these two did, is something quite different. A for WP:REDFLAG, just read the policy, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG is the applicable policy here, and that is undeniable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "undeniable". I deny it. The assertion we're making is that the two ex-employees said these things. No one is disputing that they said these things. As a secondary matter, I don't think anyone is disputing the stories of pushing people into the pool or closing a carwindow on their neck either. Davis mentions Rawat having his senior followers climb onto a sled to be dragged aroun by Rawat on a motorcycle. So we all agree he played potentially dangerous pranks on people, which is a typical teenaged behavior.
 * Also- you don't need to cut-and-paste entire policy sections in here. Just quoting it over and over again doesn't make it any more applicable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also- you don't need to cut-and-paste entire policy sections in here. Just quoting it over and over again doesn't make it any more applicable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A prank does not amount to the type of allegations these two individuals made, and Wikipedia should npot be used to further such claims. I am cutting and pasting that section of policy, to see if at least once you would address my question: Why do we have such a formulation in one of the key content policies of Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We have many policies that don't apply to this situation. WP:REDFLAG is one of them. The claims are not exceptional and Melton, the UPI, and the L.A. Times are "exceptionally high-quality reliable sources". So "REDFLAG" is covered in two ways. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will answer your question Jossi. We have this formulation in a core policy to keep controversial poorly sourced material out of wikipedia. Three strong sources unquestionably satisfies it. Hohohahaha (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted a request for clarification, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

 * Nice Will. This edit looks nice and neutral to me, attributing the opinion : [].


 * Hi Jossi. I agree I did not discuss these changes first. I will sit with whether I want to join in the mediation.


 * a) Will fixed that up in a way that I am satisfied with. There are of course no such thing as "standard cult charges" however it is a whole different ball game if it is a direct quote of someone.


 * b) Does the source use the exact words "more universal?" If so I would like to see it in quotes. Otherwise, it sounds promotional to me, and without those exact words borders on OR.


 * c) I don't like your tone with "poor grammar use." I have observed that you use little jabs like that to people who disagree with your POV. For something so small, is it really necessary to make an issue? Theoretically This is a collaborative venture, why not just tweak it for "un-poor grammar?"


 * d) Actively sounds like a judgment to me, and promotional at best. Without a source it is OR.


 * Per the phrase "unilateral edits".... I have a deep wish to be treated fairly. I don't know the history of this page and mediation well enough, to say what has or has not occurred, however if Momento made changes unilaterally and was not "called" on it, I would ask you to not "call" me on it. Hohohahaha (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have questions about a source, then you can simply ask. Changing an edit first and asking question later may not be the best way to do this, don't you think? The poor grammar use, is just that, don't take it too personally. As for your comment about Momento's editing behavior, what this has to do with this debate? Nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Propose this wording for that short sentence: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan is a dubious source. Can't we do better? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Geaves himself would be a better source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan is not a "dubious" source, and the fact that he was one the earlier students is not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan is on the list of items to be mediated, should we ever get back to it. In the meantime there's no consensus to use her further. The "rongeaves.com" source is more than adequate. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, Will. I made a proposal above, and you just made an edit withuot discussing it ? Why is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You said there's no dispute that he was a student. All I did was add a source for it. Is adding a source a problem? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (sigh) I made a proposal, which contains relevant data that is undisputed. Check it out, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that Geaves web page, does not speak of himself as a "follower". He states that I have always been open about my allegiances, and that's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He speaks of being "associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the last thirty years". Are you now disputing that he's a follower? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I am disputing the use of the term "follower", which is not in that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're editing over a disputed issue? How does this comport with mediation and your commitment not to edit articles in this topic? Don't you think it's more appropriate to get consensus before making unilateral edits?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? I made a proposal you ignored, and you made an unilateral change without discussion. Then you added a source, misquoted the source, and you are calling me on my editing behavior? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hohohahaha made an edit, which you reverted. We discussed it, and I made an edit that appeared from your own comment, to be undisputed. Now you've made another unilateral edit. I suggest you slow down and keep your cool. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am cool, Will. The issue boils down to this: Was my edit correct, or not? Does have merit or not? And the other question is this: Was your edit accurate, or not? . I'll touch base again tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Was Hohohahaha's edit, that you reverted, inaccurate? If not, why did you revert it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * re questions about source:I didn't have any questions about a sources.


 * re grammer- It is an unnecessary comment. Really. Don't like something minor... maybe fixing it would be the way to go? Pointing out relatively minor errors with someone you disagree with is not a good way to foster collaboration... especially right at the beginning of a discussion!


 * re momento comment. I didn't comment on Momento's behavior... I made a request about yours. Will pointed out Momento made some unilateral changes to which you did not object. I asked you to treat me as you treat him.Hohohahaha (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without sounding condescending, I would argue that someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed. This article is now in probation, and under mediation. As such, I would caution anyone, regardless of who that person is to be mindful of unilateral edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are being condescending... and my errors are stacking up! "poor grammar use," I cannot spell grammar correctly (like it is a terminal condition as opposed to a single mistake!) and my mental/writing abilities are such that "I should be more cautious" with sentence structure. (i.e. if you can't do simple things, you certainly can't handle complicated stuff!)


 * It is condescending and it is a convent way to focus on contributor and not content, while not appearing to do so.


 * And given that you appear to be human like myself, [], and this GEM!!!!! "someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed." my invitation to you is to focus on the content of arguments and edits.


 * I have warned you for lack of civility and a PA. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have extended an apology, that I hope you would accept. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

replied there, and accepted. Hohohahaha (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and Rift
The final sentence in this section is problematic. 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.[92] Price appears the only source for the assertion ''^ Price, Maeve (1979): "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization". Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296. "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."'' There could never have been a "legal wrangle" over the UK DLM as it was governed by UK Charity Law which would have empowered the Trustees in all circumstances except gross violation of fiduciary responsibilities; should there have been any impropriety the public regulator - the Charity Commission would have had involvement, and there is no evidence that this ever happened, the UK DLM continued to promote Prem Rawat up to its closure in 1995 Further there is no evidence that DUO existed as a legal entity in the UK - certainly the Register of Charities shows no such non profit being registered in the UK. Price appears to have taken a first hand report from a DLM insider at face value, unfortunately she does not accord the information to a source to which it could be ascribed. I suggest therefore that the offending sentence simply be deleted.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though it seems unlikely she was misinformed. This version of events is just weird and wrong, though not, it seems, self-serving. It's an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object to deleting that sentence. The nature of the relationships between various DUO and DLM branches are murky, and this material doesn't clarify them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
I have fully protected this page until mediation has ended, any administrator can freely undo this at their own will without it being a wheel war. Cheers, Chetblong  ( talk ) 02:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What?
Article content: ''The Divine Light Mission has been described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It has been called a new religious movement,[167] a cult,[168] a charismatic religious sect,[169] an offshoot of Sant Mat,[170] an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,[171] a Radhasoami offshoot,[172] an orthodox Sikh community,[173] an Advait Mat related tradition,[174] a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"),[175] and a defunct religious movement.[176] ''

Lead: ''The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion.''

???????? The lead needs to, at least, describe the conflicting aspects of their "labeling" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro is a short, summary version of the article. It can't and shouldn't have all the details that the body of the text has. What change are you proposing? If it's significant we should use the proposal system. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am making a complaint about the summary of the labelling. It needs at a minimum to explain that there where conflicting and numerous descriptions. I will make an edit and see if it sticks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an intro, not the main article. No, please don't "make an edit and see if it sticks". Please use the mediation process and make a proposal.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest we use "new religious movement" in the lede and leave the rest to the main article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the vast number of sources that have labelled it a "cult" that suggestion would niot result in an intro that reflects reality or that summarizes sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·


 * I agree that the sentence would have to be rewritten to work with the NRM label. I still would be in favour of using that label in the lede, since it is the up-to-date scientific label. The popular cult label is better covered in the article proper. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence refers to what the group was labelled, not what category scientists use for it. Even scholars such as Bromley and Shupe acknowledge that it is usually categorized as a cult: "In this chapter we lay the groundwork by describing the six most prominent, controversial groups called cults:..." and lists the DLM. The DLM was not a bystander during the cult scare of the '70s. It was frequently mentioned as an example of a cult, and was even a target of the anticult movement. To ignore that the DLM has been called and treated as a "cult", and indeed was among the most prominent of such groups, would be a major omission and would result in an unbalanced introduction. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we reduce it to something like "The Divine Light Mission has been described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It has been called many things, from a new religious movement, to a cult, to a defunct religious movement" And flesh out the others in the article? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The description above may have been unclear. The current text in the intro is:
 * The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion.
 * Obviously some of those terms have been used far more frequently than others. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I've now changed the description at top to clarify the current text.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frequency of use is not the primary criterion in an encyclopedia. Just as an illustration, the lede of the 1994 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology referred to it as "religio-scientific movement". The present lede describes it as an "international movement". I believe we should strive for
 * NPOV
 * factual accuracy, using the most reliable sources available. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The most reliable sources available say that it has been called a cult, a sect, and a new religious movement. That's what our intro says. What's the problem? How is that not NPOV? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be written in such a way as to endorse the view that it is/was a sect, or cult. Both of these terms are pejoratives; occurring, as they do, at the end of the first paragraph, I find they fall short of an WP:NPOV intro. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To give you an admittedly OTT (= over-the-top) example, it's a little as though the lede to black people stated, at the end of the first paragraph, that "historically, black people have often been referred to as wogs, niggers and kaffirs." That, too, is undeniably true, and citable to reliable sources. Now, scale that down by a factor of three, and you have what I feel about this lede. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It clearly says that these were terms used to refer to it, and does not endorse any of them. It does not say that it was any of them. That's how to present information with the neutral point of view. If you'd like to make a proposal for changes to the intro then please go ahead. But I don't think there's a consensus to remove the terms outright. And I think your example is not just OTT, but also incorrect. Those are simply slang pejoratives for black people, not different lineages to which black people may belong. "New religious movements", "sects", "and "cults" are three distinct terms, none of which is another name for the DLM.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagreements are natural and hopefully what brings articles forward. Still, I for one have some sympathy for Jossi's feeling (presumably) that the lede gives undue weight to the pejoratives, as per, None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to make a proposal please use the proposal process. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really ridiculous. Proposals can be made, of course, but this is an obvious mistake. You have reverted twice for no other reason that you don't like it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted two edits made without consensus. Have Jossi and Jayen withrawn from mediation? If not, please follow the procedures we all agreed to. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While there is a proposal system in place, and the use of them is preferred, if a consensus can be established on the talk page, then that option will be considered. Steve Crossin   (contact)  06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any attempt to propose language here and gain a consensus first. Let's agree on the language first, whether here or on another page, before it's added to the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The word label is pejorative, it immediately introduces a suspicious tone. NRM would be neutral without that negative verb. Rumiton (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer "called"? Or "described as"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "categorised" as. That is the most neutral term, as in following: The Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad) was an organization founded by guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj in 1960 to organize his followers in northern India. During the 1970s, the DLM gained prominence in the West under the leadership of his youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). The western movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was categorised as a New Religious Movement, but was also described as a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Categorize" is fine, but I don't know why we'd say it was "categorized" as an NRM" but "described" as a sect or cult. Why use different verbs? Anyway, the discussion of specific text is now at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal8. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal posted for 1st para of lede

 * Please see User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal8. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashrams
Propose to add from this material to the Ashrams in the West section Divine_Light_Mission:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "A meeting attended by the senior author was presided over by a full-time advertising executive." Huh? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please send me a copy of that paper? I don't have it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The material I propose to be included is the fact that was discussed earlier about ashramites being a minority. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's already covered in the first sentence: Only a small fraction of the overall DLM membership lived in organized ashrams during its short history.... What more are you proposing to add? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The numbers, Will, the numbers, and the fact that there where not just "counter-culture" youths. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Morgan writes:
 * We have additional sources that touch in these same issues and on others about ashrams that we haven't included yet. Let's start compiling sources and start up another proposal. I recall you had posted a few sources on ashrams and I can add some too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's "Morgan 1973"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ted Morgan is the author of NYT Magazine article of Dec 9, 1973 Oz in the Astrodome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we might as well quote him directly. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Here we have a scholar that challenges the obvious mistake that Morgan made in his article and you want to dismiss that? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What mistake? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please send me a copy of the paper? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the obvious mistake? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Counter-argument to Foss & Larkin
See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. We ought to add the opinion of this scholar that contradicts and challenges Foss & LArking opinions (my highlight):

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

 * Current


 * Proposed

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be getting a bit far from the field. The topic of this article is the DLM, not the scholars of the DLM. Perhaps this new material would be more appropriate in the articles about Foss and Larkin? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We are citing the opinion of Foss & Larkin, and we are also presenting other opinions that challenge theirs. Most appropriate, indeed. If a study is considered flawed and hostile and we use it a a source for this article, we ought to present that information to our readers.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Foss and Larkin are used to agree with Barrett about "superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect". Does Kemeny address this point in his paper? I don't see it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (a) we are using Foss & Larkin in several sections of the article; (b) their study has been challenged by more than one scholar. Conclusion: this is important information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do Foss & Larking say exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many scholars have been reviewed and questioned by other scholars. While we might include those reviews in articles about the scholars or their works, I don't think that the article about the DLM is the place to put those disputes between scholars, unless it directly concerns the DLM or the assertions being made about them. If Jossi doesn't have a copy of the paper I'd be happy to send him one. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If Jossi wants to write a critique about how scholars of NRMs disute each other, that another article unrelated to Prem Rawat. To bring it into this article is off-topic to the subject.  These academics have arguments all of the time.  It's the nature of the academic "beast."  Has nothing to do with DLM.  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say that I am not surprised of the response to this source. Please read the material: Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars, and then tell me if it does not have anything to do with the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If a study we cite has received substantial criticism, that is relevant. But perhaps the criticism should not take up more room than the thing criticised. Suggested re-word:

-- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I would avoid the long name of the work by Foss & Larkin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And btw, I do not see Foss & Larking making similar criticism to what Barret reports. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just took this on faith since it was in the article already (never a good idea, I suppose). But looking again at Foss and Larkin's text, it contains passages like formal logic yields to emotional logic; maintained a strong emotional appeal by deifying the incomprehensibility of the material world which seems reasonably close. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I see. Yet, we should name the scholars that found F&L study to biased and deeply hostile. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good to me now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You plan on referring to these two as biased, by Geaves, without mentioning his own bias? Uhm, how ridiculously biased. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The current text is : The proposed text drops the characterization of Geaves, which is inappropriate considering the context. Further, we shouldn't just say "Kemeny", we should at least give his full name. Lastly, if we're going to spend so much space denigrating the Foss & LArkin paper we should do a better job oif summarizing it, instead of just saying that they agree with Barrett. Since they wrote their paper first, maybe we should say that Barrett agrees with them, for starters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * David V. Barrett noted that the DLM movement was often criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect.[137] The sociologists Ralph Larkin and Daniel A. Foss made similar observations in 1978.[138] In response, the religious scholar Ron Geaves, himself a member of the movement, accused Foss and Larkin of bias.[139]


 * Fair enough. We could keep the order of sentences and give Foss and Larkin as an example, summarizing their main points, then add the criticism, with full names, and including Geaves' affiliation. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we going to include the affiliation of all sources i.e. Christian clergy etc.Momento (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are Foss & Larkin clergy? It's especially necesary to give Geave's affiliation if we're going to use him as a source for criticism of critics of Rawat. We already do so in the existing text, based on discussions months ago. Let's not restart old disputes that have already been settled. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have in the past indicated authors' Christian affiliations, and I think it's not inappropriate to do so. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-write:

Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we good to go then? Any objections anyone? -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems good to me too. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Rumiton is away. I'll read it tomorrow.Momento (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not away, just flat-out busy elsewhere. But I see major problems with this draft. ...maintained a strong emotional appeal by deifying the incomprehensibility of the material world. What on earth does that mean? Can anyone concisely paraphrase it, the true test of comprehensibility? If you can, let's see it, but I doubt it. ...a non-causal belief system focused on the guru? Huh? You guys must perhaps be joking: this is meaningless. And Geaves status has been given several times already in the article. He doesn't have to be re-introduced. Back to square one. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The characterization of Geaves isn't changed. It's what's already in the article. It's necessary context for his criticism of the scholars. Regarding the quotation, it's from this sentence: Since the prospective premies came to the Mission in a state of confusion and despair, it maintained a strong emotional appeal by deifying the incomprehensibility of the material world, while at the same time providing an ideology which guaranteed that, through rigorous discipline, one would learn the ultimate meaning of life. Another way of saying it is,  The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was quite easy to paraphrase – "the divine nature of existence surpasses man's capacity to understand; the only valid response is love." Pretty standard religious approach, actually. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, and well done. It defeated my poor Australian understanding, so I could only assume it would defeat others also. Let's put that in. Rumiton (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and a non-causal belief system? Rumiton (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cause and effect are the tools of the mind; love is inexplicable, and uncaused. In all seriousness, I thought F&L's analysis quite perceptive, just coloured by the exasperation of someone uncomfortable with letting their heart rule their mind. Hence the criticism as hostile and biased, presumably. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gets more and more interesting. Perhaps the source's shorthand just needs to be expanded a little, without subverting the meaning. Rumiton (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic E
Please see User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission
I'm not too sure about how Cagan is used as a source in the last paragraph of Divine Light Mission:"During the customary 13 days of mourning, his mother and senior officials of the organization discussed the succession. Both Mata Ji and eldest son Satpal were suggested but before they could nominate Satpal as successor, Prem Rawat addressed the crowd and was accepted by them as their teacher and "Perfect Master".  On July 31 after an improvised ceremony, Mata Ji and his elder brothers touched Rawat's feet as a sign of respect." For instance, if the "improvised" in the second sentence is only attributable to Cagan, I'm not really sure whether we should keep it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with Cagan for this.Momento (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Based on what? Her stellar record with facts so far? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility, please. Steve Crossin   (contact)  14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, we put up 1000's of words providing ample evidence that there are serious problems with Cagan, and then an editor that should know better tosses out an "I say it's ok" without any kind of rationale whatsoever, and that is in *any* way some kind of useful/constructive comment?? I know we have WP:CIVIL, but where is WP:Try not to waste everyone's time or is that one of your jobs to handle? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on its non-controversial nature, at least. Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm assuming you mean of the subject, not the source. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, one of the exmaples at WP:CIVIL of incivility is "Feigned incomprehension, 'playing dumb'." For an editor to ignore tens of thousands of words of discussion and play dumb is uncivil. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. That's been noted, thanks. And please, I can see the frustration about time wasting. I see it, please don't think I'm ignoring it. The only thing I think will really work is if I come up with a compromise, it's clear that one won't be made between you all regarding the use of this source, I'm afraid to say. Steve Crossin   (contact)  21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve, I'm glad to see you noticed it, and I'll try not to edit before my first cup of coffee anymore! :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there are problems with Cagan, but she had the advantage of interviewing a large number of people who were closely involved, and she is writing in the modern era. And there are even greater problems with the 1970s journalistic sources that are being proposed to supplant her. They display an uncaring ignorance of the subject, (guruhood in the Sant Mat tradition) and they also show the deep western cultural bias of their day, which seduces them into turning their writings into a crowd-pleasing mockery. Cagan's problems pale into insignificance beside theirs. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

✅ --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of succession is controversial. Prem Rawat describes the transition much differently in Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji, Part I, Chapter 2, and since he is quoted in WIGMJ and not in Cagan's book concerning this, would it not be preferable to go with Maharaji's earlier version?  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji is probably a better source than PIP. However 3rd-party sources would be the best. I suggest we leave off the sentence due to the conflicting sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and for the second sentence rather being biography of Rawat than something that affected the DLM as an organization directly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently undone. Why was this material restored? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a consensus for the change being made? I'm happy with talk page consensus, but if there's not a clear consensus, I'd ask you let me know about the proposed change. Steve Crossin   (contact)  17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct Steve. There was no consensus for this change, it is just another attempt to ram the anti-Rawat POV through. Nor is there any consensus for the anti-Cagan editors to rewrite Wiki rules to eliminate PIP as a source. All arguments have been dismissed and repeating them doesn't make them any more real.Momento (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks who are opposed to including PIP as a source aren't re-writing WP policy. Just the opposite: the aim is to enforce WP:V. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the section in WP:VER you're referring to. I can't see anything that explains your opinion.Momento (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
 * Which parts of that aren't clear? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As VER notes, there are degrees of reliability. Since PIP has been published by reputable publishers in Europe, PIP comes at the high end of reliability (apart from the fact that the previous RFC noted that even a new publisher like MiightyRiver must be given the benefit of the doubt). And, in the case we are discussing, no one contradicts Cagan and one scholar has already written about family rivalry. So whichever way you look at it, Cagan's reliable.Momento (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cite the part of VER that says being translated makes a book reliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the benefit of the doubt evaporates once significant errors and omissions are found. The book has been found to contain such errors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation doesn't make a book reliable, being published by experienced and reputable publishers makes it reliable. Or are you saying that foreign language sources are unreliable?Momento (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixing errors in earlier editions can make a book more reliable. Can you point to any suche corrections or additions? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The book was written in english, and it seems a poor source in that language, what makes anyone think translating it would make it a better source? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have a thread on Cagan going on in the mediation page, expressly to avoid having these types of arguments. Let's stick to discussing the edit in question. Are there any other corroborating accounts for the assertion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "isbn0-865-54238-4" :
 * Bromley, Hammond, 1987: 113-4, 227
 * Bromley, Hammond, 1983: 113-4, 227

AfD on bibliography article
Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
First: The source that is currently #143 simply lists text, but not the source for the text: Does anyone know where this came from? Second: I'm going to start moving these long quotations into a subpage. They were useful while we were actively editing the article but now they are just in the way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "While the ashrams have often been self-supporting they have not been a good source of income for the Mission. Unlike the Moonies, the Children of God, or the Hare Krishnas, Divine Light Mission members do not sell anything. They do not solicit on street corners, selling candy, flowers, peanuts, or literature. And unlike the Church of Scientology, Guru Maharaj Ji's group does not charge for the courses or the teaching of the techniques of "knowledge." The group gets its money through gifts and the tithing of its members. The more gainfully employed a premie is, the higher the tithe the Mission receives."
 * I found the source and fixed it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception
What does that have to do with the reception of the Divine Light Mission? Geaves is talking about the movement's traits and characteristics, not it's reception. This quotation would be more appropriate in the "beliefs and practices" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ron Geaves states that the Divine Light Mission "developed into a vigorous new religious movement with its own specific traits that included characteristics of a contemporary North Indian Sant panth (sectarian institution) and nirguna bhakti was combined with intense reverence for the living satguru and millennial expectations of the western counter-culture."[70]

Mishler removed
Some sources attribute the departure of Mshler to a disagreement with Rawat, and some may even say that Rawat "removed" him. Yet I've seen frequent claims that Rawat was not the head or leader of the DLM. If that was the case then by what authority did Rawat remove Mishler? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He was Mishler's guru.Momento (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat was the guru of 50,000 (+/-) premies in the U.S. alone. Could he fire every one of them from their jobs? As an administrative matter, where does Rawat fit in the organizational chart of the DLM that he can fire the founder and president? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read that Bob was "sacked". Enough sources say that Mishler was "pushed", what's your disagreement?Momento (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that Rawat was the leader of the DLM, and it was due to that position that he could remove Mishler. For future reference, does anyone disagree? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It says Rawat took "administrative control" when he turned 16.Momento (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So from December 1973 Rawat was the administrative and spiritual leader of the DLM, while before that he was just the spiritual leader. Do we know what form this administrative leadership took? Did he assume a new title? Chairman? Mishler was still referred to as President, so Rawat didn't take that job (though he may have after Mishler left). Regarding Mishler, I think I recall readig that Rawat changed Mishler's job so that he had less authority, and as a result Mishler left. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Accfdording to Björkqvist "The greatest spokesman for this policy, however, was Maharaj Ji's right hand at the time, Bob Mishler. In 1976, he was sacked, and Maharaj Ji took total control of all organizational aspects". Presumably he took admin control from his mother in 1973 and someone sacked Mishler.Momento (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So then who was in charge between Dec. 1973 and 1976? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I assume Mata Ji had a similar arrangement to the UK. Maybe seats on the board until she and Rawat split at the end of 73. Then Mishler and Hand until they were shuffled out. Then Dettmers.Momento (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should include down the leadership changes at the DLM to the extent we can find sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the characterization that Rawat was the titular head of DLM, whether or not he held any official, legal positions. It was in 1976 that the IRS audited DLM's finances and Michael Dettmers was placed in charge of DLM International Headquarters in Denver after Mishler left. Because Rawat was receiving donations through DLM and that money was being comingled with donations to DLM itself, Dettmers changed how donations were made to benefit Rawat personally.  It was around this time that a private post office box was established in the Malibu area for the purpose of sending money to Rawat. DLM's IRS church status prevented  Rawat extremely high level of donations from premies, including his Malibu home, the luxury autos, etc.  A lawyer advising Dettmers told him that what was acceptable legally would be a small one family house and a Ford vehicle to be provided by DLM to Rawat as its Chief Minister.  So Rawat was legally distanced from DLM to avoid losing church status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit while premies could provid for his financial support separately.  Of course, there are no reliable sources other than EPO to verify this.  :)  Sylviecyn (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point for which EPO is the only source is that Dettmers found out that many cheques sent as gifts to Rawat where being stamped "pay into DLM". Rawat had been propping up DLM for years.Momento (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

External links sections added
plain text note of Ex-Premie.org - Site of former adherents to Divine Light Mission--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Satpal Rawat's movement
A while ago we were looking for information on Satpal Rawat's present-day movement and couldn't find very much at all. This book devotes several pages to it (p. 53 onwards). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source
Aldridge: Not much, but covers some of the transition from DLM to EV. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We're already usung that source in Millennium '73. It contains an overview of how Guru Maharaj Ji was presented that isn't included in Prem Rawat that we should think about adding to that article. And yes, possibly more here too. Though one quibble - so far as I can tell, he wore business suits even in the early 1970s.   Will Beback    talk    19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Size of membership
I changed the intro to read "over a million" from "six million" to match the estimate reported by Downton. The membership esitmates are all over the map, so perhaps we should add more to tihs article to include the full range. I think we already have much of that in the Prem Rawat article, but it might be better here.  Will Beback   talk    23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is an insurmountable problem in getting any sense regarding ‘membership’ or ‘adherence’ into these articles until there is some logical approach to merge/split proposals.


 * Downton’s figures are fine as far as they go, but Downton does not adequately address the differences between the pre and post 1974 movements, nor does he make any distinction between the philosophy espoused by Prem Rawat and that espoused by his father, further Downton, does not (nor as far as I can tell do any of the other known sources) address the ‘inheritance’ of Satpal Maharaj who became leader of the Indian DLM and who certainly gained the allegiance of many of his father’s followers. So when  the text “According to one estimate, the worldwide membership had declined from 6 million to 1.2 million by 1976” is used, that is a reference to Prem Rawat’s following – not to the following of the Divya Sandesh Parishad as created by the followers of Hans Rawat.  I simply can not see any way this mess can be resolved without re drawing the article boundaries.


 * Divine Light Mission should become a disambiguation page – with pointers to a) Hans Rawat Hans Ji Maharaj and b) Elan Vital Elan Vital (organization) . The Hans Rawat page can deal with all the Divya Sandesh Parishad material including some overlap with the Prem Rawat and Elan Vital articles to take the timescale to the religious schism of 1974. This is relevant to the Hans Rawat article because even though HR died in 1966,  between 1966 and 1971, the philosophy, teaching and beliefs followed by the Rawat family, the DSP mahatmas and the followers, were essentially that given by Hans Rawat. The period 71 to 74 could be considered a transitional period but we have no sources for that proposition and it is reasonable to take the Hans Rawat article to the obvious split of family, movement and philosophy in 1974. Encyclopaedically the Hans Rawat article should lead to a) the Prem Rawat article (sub from which Elan Vital and DUO/Raj Vidya Kender) and b) a Satpal Maharaj article (sub from which Manav Dharam). In fact Satpal is far more demanding of a WP article than his younger brother given Satpal’s high profile political career.


 * Elan Vital (organization) should commence chronologically in 1971 with the creation of the multiple national DLM organisations. We have perfectly good primary source data that these entities were independent of Divya Sandesh Parishad, (IRS records, UK Charity Register) and that in the case of both the US and Australian DLMs, Elan Vital was just a name change. 1971 to 1974 would be an overlap period with the Hans Rawat article though with the Elan Vital article focusing on more of the US and European detail given by academics.


 * This rationalisation would allow a clearer use of the adherence figures as well as being generally more logical and encyclopaedic. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that the history of this international movement is complex, and that there are several major players, and identifiable eras. While there are obvious problems in trying to address the DLM as a single entity, that is how most sources regard it. I certainly agree that the material on Indian side of the movement needs to be better developed, and that a bio of Satpal Rawat would help. However I suggest that the best approach isn't a major overhaul but rather incremental improvements. Once this article becomes too long then it'd be a good time to think about how to split off sections.     Will Beback    talk    01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for New Lede
The Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad) was an organization created in 1960 by devotees of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj During the early 1970s, the DLM name gained prominence in the UK and  US when followers of Guru Maharaj Ji, youngest son of Shri Hans Maharaj, set up similarly named national organisations. Other national DLMs were set up in several South American and European countries as well as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (cites needed). ''By 1974, in addition to the US, Divine Light Mission was able to list contact addresses in Europe, Australia, New Zealand,  South America and the Caribbean. ''

Following a rift between the eldest and youngest of Shri Hans Rawat’s four sons, the reputed six million Indian followers of DLM split their adherence with only 1.2 million remaining committed to Guru Maharaj Ji. Outside of India few of the DLM adherents appear to have transferred allegience to the elder brother, Bal Bhagwan Ji(Satpal Maharaj) and by 1975 the Divine Light Mission had become two separate movements. Bal Bhagwan Ji subsequently became known as Satpal Maharaj and consolidated his following under the organisational title Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti. In India an organisation called DUO served as the organising base for Guru Maharj Ji, it was later named Raj Vidya Kender. Outside of India the name Divine Light Mission was in some cases changed to Elan Vital in the 1980s elsewhere the organisations have been disbanded, the UK Divine Light Mission was dissolved in 1993, with a wholly new orgnisation called Elan Vital being created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone has substantive objections I will go ahead and replace the lede with the above amended proposal (see strike through and italicised replacement text.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your proposal for the lead is original research contrary to Wiki guidelines. There are also huge gaps and errors in  chronology. Thanks  Terry Macro (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik, could you please discuss the changes you're proposing?   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of course - but the existing lede is wholly unreferenced, so something new is required. Perhaps Terry could identifiy some factually errors - he seems to have missed the Notes at the bottom of this page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the point of changing the lede. What is specifically wrong or incorrect with the current lede that it needs an edit?  Where does the current lede deviate from a NPOV?  If it is not broken, why fix it? Terry Macro (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is common and permissible to have an unsourced intro, because it should summarize assertions that are already sourced in the body of he article. See WP:LEADCITE. The current lead could be cited if that's a problem.   Will Beback    talk    18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations" in the lede. See WP:LEADCITE. Terry Macro (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material...The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". See WP:LEADCITE. Aside from that, if you feel that something specific needs a reference in the lead, let us know what, I'm sure it can be sourced easily, as already suggested by Will. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 01:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The discipline of referencing the lede would help show where the problems are, but five major problems stand out as obvious:


 * No representation in the body text at all:


 * DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion. (the body text merely states the IRS classification but does not refence any statement by ‘officials’.)


 * despite rival claims from other family members (these rival claims are given no reference in the body text)


 * where local branches of DLM were established and rapidly expanded (local branches are not referered to in the body text)


 * In the text but erroneous


 * when he turned sixteen, following the financially disastrous Millennium '73 festival, he took administrative control of the US branch. (as discussed many times this is not leagally possible)


 * In the early 1980s, Rawat began disbanding the western DLM. (see notes at the bottom of this page)


 * The errors in the text obviously have to be addressed, I just thought it was simpler to start with the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik, that's a helpful list. While a lead should summarize the text, in fact they are drafted separately and things are added or subtracted from the lead or the text over time, so even if it was a perfect summary at one time it may be imperfect now. I'm not sure that removing material found in the intro but not the text is always the best approach - maybe we should add them to the text too.   Will Beback    talk    18:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * taking into account the lede summarizes the body text, the logical and simpler approach is to correct the body text first. Terry Macro (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not if the lede is more accurate. In such a case, we should change the body text, back to a version that more accurately reflects the lede. Your method would have us change the lede, change the text, then change the lede back. That's simpler? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 01:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite for the "a church but not a religion" assertion. I'm inclined to remove the part about rival claims from other family members, since I don't recall seeing that in any reliable source. However I'm afraid the other issues are more equivocal. There are sources that say he took over administrative control at 16, even if he had no legal authority. The question of whether the DLM was disbanded or just renamed is complicated, and not necesarily the same in every country. The issue of local branches is probably best addressed by improving the text. So, let's drop the "rival claims", add local branches to the text, and discuss the other issues.   Will Beback    talk    10:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those proposals are fine with me, though I think the other problems are symptomatic of a structural promblem, and not merely difficulties in themselves. Essentially the current article is constructed as though there was a single linear development of a single organisation focused on Prem Rawat (which in part is a function of the available sources), a more accurate history however requires identification of different 'operative regimes' by both time and geography. I've created a working chronology at and that, or something like it should guide further editing of this article. As far as the specific problem of administratiative control, I think it should be considered an 'exceptional claim' which ought to be supported by some exceptional evidence. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, how are you intending to interface your proposed new chronology with the existing sections in the DLM topic? I could see the logic of the chronology but not how you propose to place it in the body of the topic.  Terry Macro (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the lead (time for a new section?), but while we're talking of major reorganizations let me say that I'm concerned that the articles doesn't adequately cover the legal cases between the brothers in the mid-1970s, or the oscillations of the late 1970s (particularly closing, then re-opening, then re-closing the ashrams). The article isn't perfect.   Will Beback    talk    07:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)