Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 5

Chronology
Terry asks how I intend to 'interface' 'my' new chronology. For an article that is effectively a 'history, the operative Chronology should be clear to the reader, and is something which should be fully established by consensus amongst editors, so I have no fixed view on how the Chronology should (or even could) work with the existing structure until there is some established consensus on what the Chronology is. The point is that the current text is substantially achronious and does not assist the reader in understanding the history. My preference would be a structure that reflects a chronology of management/oversight/figure head changes, such as:


 * Initial phase (Tandon/Hans Rawat) 1960-> 1966
 * Regent phase (Tandon/Mataji/Satyapal/Guru Maharaji) 1966-> 1971
 * Geographic Expansion (India = Tandon/Mataji/Satyapal/Guru Maharaji)(US = Mishler/Guru Maharaji) 1971-> 1974/1975
 * Schizm (India = Tandon/Mataji/Satyapal)(US = Mishler/Guru Maharaji -> X/Guru Maharaji)1974->1976
 * Indian consolidation (Tandon/Satyapal) 1975 ->Present
 * Guru Maharaji consolidation (X/Guru Maharaji)1975-> 1982
 * Maharaji phase (X/Prem Rawat) 1982 -> present

Thereafter the beliefs (and notable fluctuations) attached to the main phases (Hans Rawat ->Geographic Expansion), (Geographic Expansion ->Schism), (Indian consolidation), (Guru Maharaji consolidation), (Maharaji phase) can be discussed in discrete sections. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This may be a stupid quesiton, but who is Tandon?   Will Beback    talk    19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have made that clear. C.L.Tandon was a founder member and Secretary of the Indian DLM from 1960 to at least 1978. He is the named party in at least one Court case between DLM and Prem Rawat (C. L. Tandon v. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, AIR 1978 Delhi 221 - quoted online in wholly separate proceedings at ); Tandon is also the author (as DLM Secretary) of Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. pub Divine Light Mission 1970 --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Doing a little research I see:
 * ''In the Mission pamphlet Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (the name of the Guru's father, the founder of the Mission), published in Delhi in late 1970, C.L. Tandon, the president of the Mission in India, writes: "Shri Maharaj Ji . . . used to emphasize one important aspect of the Gita, which had been ignored by [other gurus]: 'Remember me and fight. 'The entire philosophy of the Gita is hidden in this most important commandment given to Arjuna by Lord Krishna." In another passage Tandon continues, "We must learn the technique of meditation which can be performed at all times even while fighting in the battlefield.... All external forms of meditation are useless as they cannot be performed while one is engaged in battle." Arjuna was the leading disciple of Krishna, the Hindu equivalent of Jesus (Guru Maharaj Ji claims, of course, to be the reincarnation of Krishna and Jesus and every other Perfect Master who ever lived), and was given the all-important command, "Remember me and fight," by Krishna when he was despondent before a big battle, unable to stomach the thought of killing. Again, according to Tandon: "Arjuna threw down his bow in the battlefield in depression and said that he would prefer begging and taking alms rather than winning a victory by killing his kith and kin. . . . We find Arjuna in the beginning of the book in the grip of confusion and dejection, desirous of renouncing the very idea of war but Arjuna after listening to the discourses of Lord Krishna and getting the knowledge is able to wage a war...."
 * "I SEE THE LIGHT", Ken Kelley, Penthouse, July 1974
 * ''C. L. Tandon, general-secretary of the Divine Light Mission in India, said the Guru has "shown disrespect to his mother by removing her pictures from the American Divine Light missions, saying she is not worthy of worship but that his wife is."
 * "Guru's mother renounces son as playboy", AP, April 2, 1975
 * A top Indian official in the Divine Light Mission said Thursday he suspects the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had a hand in leading 17-year-old guru Maharaj Ji from his spiritual path. ... C. L. Tandon, the mission's general secretary in India, said: "American devotees of the guru want the centre of control of the Dvine Light Mission to be in the United States and not in India so that they can influence people all over the world." In a statement, Tandon said he suspected that some of Marharaj Ji's leading American devotees had acted on behalf of the CIA to wean the guru from India and his mother. "It is their intention to use guru Maharaj Ji's influence for political and financial gains," the statement added. ... In an interview in the mission's main Indian temple Tandon said he had no proof to link the CIA with the guru. "It is only something we suspect," he said. "But an organization like the CIA could use the Divine Light Mission which has become a popular world phenomenon, as a front organization to find out information about other countries." Tandon said that with few exceptions, all eight million Divine Light devotees in India were siding with the guru's mother.
 * "CIA Led Guru Astray, Sect Official Charges" AP, APRIL 7, 1975
 * By the middle of 1974, he had reached the point of no return on the road described as "unspiritual" by his mother, brother and C.L. Tandon, the Secretary-General of the Mission in India. The "divine mother" spent virtually the whole of 1974 trying to get her son back on the proper path. Mr. Tandon made two visits to the U.S.A. to persuade the "Perfect Master" to mend his ways, but was appalled to see that "night clubs," "illicit relations" and liquor were part of the routine of the young Guru. And that the four taboos of the Mission, "no sex, no alcohol, no consumption of non-vegetarian food and complete celibacy" had been broken within the ashram in the U.S.A.
 * The World of Gurus, Vishal Mangalwadi, First Edition by Vikas Publishing House in 1977
 * That's something, but I hope we can find more.   Will Beback    talk    09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nik, that was great research - I only knew of those times in general terms and from hearsay. Re how to marry your revised chronology to the DLM topic, I am more a user of information from Wiki rather than an editor.  In my expereince most topics have a fairly standardised way of presenting the history section, which is usually by time periodization, eras, dynasties etc.  The DLM historical chronology is unusual as it mixes up specific events with time frames. It really should choose one method or another if it is to maintain some kind of structural integrity. Terry Macro (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From my casual observation, the history chronology of DLM is not `standard' as it is.

End of DLM in UK

 * In the early 1980s, Rawat began disbanding the western DLM.
 *  The ashrams were closed along with the Denver headquarters (1979). The organization's name was changed to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change.  Similar name changes occurred in the U.K. (in 1991), Australia, and France (in 1987). 

I see that the current text in our article is unsourced. On another page, Nik Wright2 has posted a link showing that the DLM ceased to be a charitable organization in 1995. Should we change the date to 1995?  Will Beback   talk    06:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is worthwhile examining that text in detail because it goes to the heart of some larger problems.


 * The ashrams were closed along with the Denver headquarters (1979).  - the 1979 date is attributable to Melton (1986 not 2003 !) but the ashram closure seems a synthesis from elswhere – or does Melton 2003 actually say this ? Borkvist gives 1980 but in the absence of any other source I certainly think it is wrong to conflate the moving of the headquarters (yes a particuar building closed but the bureaucracy remained, it simply moved to Florida) with the ashram closure  (the actual date of which was 1982/83 but there seems no good source for this).


 * The organization's name was changed to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change. -the sourcing is unequivocal but the text needs to be made precise with the inclusion of “in the US”.


 * Similar name changes occurred in the U.K. (in 1991), Australia, and France (in 1987) – what does Abgrall actually say ? the point about the UK Charity Register entry is not that the name was changed but that the charity DLM, was dissolved in 1995. Quite separately a new Charity was registered in 1993 as Elan Vital. Perversly this is the only hard evidence for the claims of Rawat disbanding the DLM – everywhere else the name is changed without closing the national organisation; although from around 1998 onwards a lot of the smaller Elan Vitals were closed, though there’s no source that recognises this as far as I can see.

In summary, it’s not simply a matter of changing the date but of restructuring the text to reflect (as far as the sources allow)the history of what actually happened. I suggest wholly separating (by paragraph and/or section) the ashram closure and minor changes like the US headquarters move, from the major issue of the name changes and actual closure of the UK DLM. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The ashram closures do seem to have less than their due weight. It's an issue that I've seen raised in many sources, and yet we seem to gloss over it. Also, if Elan Vital didn't replace DLM in the UK until the mid-1990s than there's a lack of clarity in the article. Could you propose a split like you describe, without making major changes on its own?   Will Beback    talk    10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, there's a collection of excerpts on the topic of ashrams at /Ashrams. If anyone finds other material that mentions ashrams please add it.   Will Beback    talk    10:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and Rift
I re-added Marolyn's occupation, but after thinking about it a little more now, I have a couple of thoughts. I think I would support adding it into the PR article, and removing it from here. It has a little more to do with his life, than that of the DLM. Also, I don't know that the 2 articles necessarily need to have verbatim text copied and pasted between them, otherwise, it's really just one article with 2 separate pages. Thoughts? Usual flames? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If we can successfully refocus the article to reflect the actual organisational history as it is relevant to all aspects of the use of the name Divine Light Mission, then it should be possible to make this a distinct article from Prem Rawat. The existing construct has in effect been to merely mirror the Rawat article by using exactly the same sources for both, just using here the bits of text that happen to include the name DLM as opposed to the name Guru Maharaj Ji. So I would envisage in this article, cutting the personal details about Rawat to the bare minimum. In the case of Marolyn Rawat, the judgement would be "does her occupation have a bearing on developments in the Divine Light Mission ?" I think the answer is no. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The marriage is often cited by sources as one of the causes of the family feud that ultimately split the DLM and also led many followers to leave. As a "family business", personal and organizational matters were intertwined. There were two aspects: the perception within the family and the perception within by the followers. Rawat's mother was supposedly upset about the marriage to a non-Indian, etc. Followers were supposedly upset because it contradicted his teachings about celibacy. With that background stated, I agree with Maelefique that we don't need identical text in both articles, but in this case the text here was somewhat faulty and the the text from the Rawat article was better sourced. We can use it as a good basis for further tailoring to the needs of this article. As for the matter of the job title, it depends on its significance to the DLM, as Nik points out. Frankly, my impression from reading sources is that more followers were more concerned with the fact that she was older, beautiful, and blond than that she was his secretary. FWIW, the fact that she was previously a stewardess is probably totally insignificant to this article.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Split Ashram Closure from Name Change > new section
The logical separation of the treatment of ashrams from the treatment of name change, should concordant with the logical split between the treatment of Satpal's following and Prem Rawat's following - this can be achieved by introducing a new section "Two Movements"(largle a place holder for the present). Derks and Lans provide the reference base for this new Section. The necessary changes are as follows:


 * 1. Delete final sentence of Marriage and Rift Section
 * 2. Insert new Section “Two Movements”. – see text to insert below
 * 3. Rename “Westernization” as “Movement Loyal to Prem Rawat”
 * 4. Delete “The ashrams were closed along with the Denver headquarters (1979). The organization's name was changed to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change.[96][97] Similar name changes occurred in the U.K. (in 1991), Australia, and France (in 1987).[98] Prem Rawat asked to be referred to as "Maharaji" instead of "Guru Maharaj Ji."
 * 5. add to “Prem Rawat was no longer to be venerated as a god or regarded as a Perfect Master” -- and Ashrams were closed [86][94][95]
 * new Section ....Two Movements....

The family rift was followed by a schizm within the global Divine Light Mission. In 1978 a court-ordered settlement confirmed the eldest Rawat brother (Satyapal) in the leadership role of the Indian DLM, while the youngest brother (Prem Rawat) retained the DLM following outside of India. In 1983 the US Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital, and this progressively became the corporate name of the organisations that supported Prem Rawat. Divine Light Missions in Australia, France and elsewhere were renamed, in 1995 the UK Divine Light Mission was dissolved. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've pasted the existing text into /History draft and have made the changes you propose (as best I understand them. Please fix it if it's incorrect.) Here's a diff showing the changes.
 * The suggestion seems reasonable and fairly minor. The article is still weak in describing the rift and the ups and downs of late 1970s, but this is a step in the right direction. Three quibbles: 1) The article mostly uses American English, so it should probably be "schism" not "schizm". 2) Is "the global Divine Light Mission" the right term or would "international" be any better? 3) We never call the eldset brother "Satyapal", only "Satpal". (Oddly, we never include "Bal Baghan Ji", his more common neame at one time. I'll go add that somewhere.)
 * The matter of where to put the Indian DUO, now the last paragraph in "DLM in India", is tricky. It's an Indian part of the movement, but it was loyal to Prem Rawat. Which section should it go in? If we rename that section to something more like "Movement loyal to Satpal Rawat" then it'd be a clearer choice.   Will Beback    talk    10:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(insert) I've begun the process of editing the draft. As this is likely to require a number of disparate changes I've started a section at the bottom of the page for notes that may be more substantial than the edit summary allows for.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above demonstrates a misrepresentation of the situation as there was no international rift. There was no " schizm within the global Divine Light Mission", the rift was solely in India.  Therefore to make out that there was a global rift is a gross exaggeration.  This is due I believe to the misrepresentation of Divine Light Mission in the lede.  If you look at the following extract of the Red Cross, the editors on that site appeared to be able to get the representation of that movement across quiet correctly:

The often-heard term International Red Cross is actually a misnomer, as no official organization as such exists bearing that name. In reality, the movement consists of several distinct organizations that are legally independent from each other, but are united within the Movement through common basic principles, objectives, symbols, statutes and governing organs. The Movement's parts: Terry Macro (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to rely on our sources, and many discuss a rift that split the movement. It Terry has sources to the contrary then let's add those too.   Will Beback    talk    07:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Terry, you can not on the one hand tell us on your talk page that as the Finance Director of a company owned by the Australian Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital, that you had no idea that Elan Vital was merely the DLM renamed, and then on this page make assertions about DLM history and expect to be believed, without supporting those assertions with References. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry is of course right. There was no split in the DLM outside India. Who says so?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "international" part comes in the plsit between the Indian part and the rest.   Will Beback    talk    09:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Rainer P.- who says there was a split in the Indian movement ? All the sources agree that Satpal took over the DLM in India (and that is the subject of this article). The origin and support of DUO/RVK is pertinent to this article but apart from some figures for adherence (Rudin & Rudin etc) there are no sources which discuss an actual split in the Indian DLM. Would you please start backing your comments with references, your continued unsupported arguments are becoming tendentious.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Nik, not everybody can be a bookworm. A little unreferenced common sense should be tolerable by WP, no need to get nasty. What in your discretion is tendentious in my edit?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are writing an Encyclopedia - academic rigour is an essential requirement, if you don't want to meet that standard then do not edit. Making endless complaints which are unsupported by sources is tendentious. There is nothing in what I have written that could conceivably count as being 'nasty', however if you feel I have abrogated any Wikipedia rules you should seek redress through the appropriate process, do not use your complaints as a further philibustering tactic. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, instead you're bullying. Maybe I haven't understood WP right. This is a talkpage, isn't it? And where do you perceive a complaint, let alone endless ones?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've lost track over what is in dispute here. Sources agree that there was a split in the movement. An agreement made in court case in India said that Satpal would control the DLM in India, and Prem would control it elsewhere. Is there any disagreement about that?   Will Beback    talk    18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to Nik's proposed edit?   Will Beback    talk    05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The assertion that "An agreement made in court case in India said that Satpal would control the DLM in India, and Prem would control it elsewhere" does not ring true. No Indian court has any authority over organisations incorporated and set up overseas.  Why would a DLM outside of India pay any attention to what an Indian court dictates? Is the reference sound?  Terry Macro (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ave to look up the cited reference, but the same assertion is here: Is there any source that has a different account?   Will Beback    talk    07:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The book ref you provided is very generalised and non-specific but unfortunately may be the best available. I don't know of any reliable source that provides an accurate explanation of the situation but this does not mean that a reliable source does not exist. Terry Macro (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As provided at the bottom of this page C. L. Tandon v. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, AIR 1978 Delhi 221 quoted in separate case at  "An agreement made in court case in India said that Satpal would control the DLM in India, and Prem would control it elsewhere" is not the proposed text.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note there is material on Satpal's movement here (pp. 54ff.).  JN 466  10:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a good source for some issues concerning Satpal's side of the DLM but McKean says little about the split itself.   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the existing text that most direcly addresses the split's legal aspect. These appear in different sections, which is an organizational problem addressed by the proposed change. I can't find Lewiss 1998 The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions at the movement, but here's what the same author wrote in another book the same year: Downtown devotes some attention to the underlying causes of the split, but doesn't appear to mention the court case specifically. However he may mention it somewhere in th book that I can't find. His coverage is almost exclusively of the American movement.
 * In 1975 Prem Rawat returned to India in an attempt to gain control of the Indian DLM. A court-ordered settlement resulted in his eldest brother Satpal retaining control of the Indian DLM, while Rawat maintained control of the DLM outside of India.
 * Lewis, James R. (1998). The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1573922226 9781573922227. page 301
 * In 1975 Mata Ji took control of the DLM in India as a result of the rift and installed her eldest son, Satpal Rawat, as its head. A lawsuit in India resulted in his brother Satpal gaining control of the Divine Light Mission in India, and Rawat continuing to lead DLM in the rest of the world.
 * [Melton in Partridge (2004), pp.201-202] (Partridge, Christopher H. (2004). New religions : a guide : new religious movements, sects, and alternative spiritualities. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195220420 9780195220421.)
 * Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231041985 9780231041980.
 * Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Michigan, Thomson Gale, 2007]
 * In 1975 Maharaj Ji took his family to court. He received cointrol of the movement everywhere but in India, where his brother remained the leader.
 * Lewis, James; NetLibrary, Inc. (1998a). Cults in America a reference handbook. Santa Barbara Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780585058436. p. 84

I can't find Partidge, but Melton's own Encyclopedic Handbook of Cultsin America 1986 says:
 * Accusing her son of breakinghis spiritual discipline, Mataji took control of the Mission in India and replaced him with his eldest brother. In 1975 Mahraj Ji returned to India and took his family to court. In a court-decreed settlement, he reecived control of the movement everywhere except in India, where his brother was recognized as its head.

There are more sources, including a number of contemporary newspaper and magazine articles that covered the legal dispute. However since there isn't any source that denies there was a split I don't see the need to keep copying in more material. Getting back to the question at hand - are there any objections to the proposal?  Will Beback   talk    01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, let's make the edit.   Will Beback    talk    20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume the paragraph meant is the one below. I have made some copyedits to it: "schism" is spelt with an s, and I fixed some minor formatting issues. Revision below, but note that this is not an endorsement; there are still issues outstanding:




 * Outstanding issues:


 * 1. Abgrall p. 285 does not say that the French DLM was renamed; it says
 * 2. The name change of the US DLM is only referenced to a primary source; I'd prefer a secondary one.
 * 3. No source at all is given for the assertion that DLM organisations in "Australia" and "elsewhere" were renamed Elan Vital.
 * 4. Why are we calling Satpal Satyapal?  JN  466  21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated text follows

Two Movements
•	The family rift was followed by a schizm within the global Divine Light Mission. In 1978 a court-ordered settlement confirmed the eldest Rawat brother (Satya Pal, also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji, now Satpal Maharaj) in the leadership role of the Indian DLM, while the youngest brother (Prem Pal) retained the DLM following outside of India. In 1983 the US Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and a Swiss Foundation of the same name was created. . Elan Vital progressively became the corporate name of the organisations that supported Prem Rawat and in 1995 one of the last remaining usages of the Divine Light Mission name came to an end when the UK organisation of that name was dissolved.

notes - there are no secure secondary sources that accord with the definitive evidence from the primary sources. This may be highly regrettable but this is a reflection upon those scholars who have written about the Divine Light Mission, in many cases the errors once made are repeated in a log rolling process from one author to another. I've added Melton to references re: the court case, and also recast the name change process to exclude the date for Australia which isn't availble online (just the fact of the change) and included the Elan Vital Foundation as an indicator of wider use of that name. The UK DLM is an important 'end point' but there is no source which describes it as such, the wording I've used isn't the most precise, but does anyone dispute the fact that name ceased to be in use after 1995 ? Given the claims for much earlier dissolution some form of wording that acknowledges a position which is not in common dispute seems allowable. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC) addendum - Satayal Pal is the legal name as used in the Court documents.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not engage in analysis of the primary sources; can't we just lose the last subclause, i.e. "and in 1995 one of the last remaining usages of the Divine Light Mission name came to an end when the UK organisation of that name was dissolved."? I think "Elan Vital progressively became the corporate name of the organisations that supported Prem Rawat" says all we need to say. I'd lose the reference to the founding of EV Switzerland and the renaming of DLM US as well; again, we only have primary sources for that.  JN 466  13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Divine Light Mission, and there needs to be an explanation of what happened to it. I don't understand the objection to the use of definitive primary sources where there are no useable secondary or tertiary sources available. I agree that the article can make sense without identifying the "last use", so the Charity Register ref can go, at least as far as this paragraph is concerned, however the US name change is essential and it would be utterly perverse not to include it. What was missing previously was a comment on what happened in India - I've added that so there is now a balance in the history across the schism. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Our job here is first and foremost to reflect coverage in the most reliable and most reputable sources. It is very difficult to find consensus as soon as an editor wants to add information from primary sources that the secondary literature has somehow "missed". The reason for that is that each editor will have their own views on what interesting information is out there in primary sources that the secondary literature has "missed". Premies will want to include that Rawat has been honoured by dozens of cities around the globe, has won prizes that secondary sources have failed to comment upon, what he said in his latest speech, etc., and you will want to add that DLM was really only "renamed" and not disbanded at all, or that the DLM name was "used" in the UK until 1995, based on your research (we have whole Scientology articles based on such detective work, and at least one editor was topic-banned for engaging in it). So I feel concerned as soon as anyone says we have to be ahead of or "better" than the most reputable sources, because "better" will invariably mean "better" according to their POV. Think about it, it makes sense. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing a "new and better informed" look at Prem Rawat. This is what the ex-premies' (and premies') websites and other activities are for. The more responsible and sober those websites are, the better their chances that any valid points they make will eventually be taken up by reliable sources. But that battle has to be fought out there, not here. Just my two cents: I am sure you can find a flaw in my argument somewhere, but I am sure you can recognise too that it is not all wrong either.  JN 466  14:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely common sense dictates that Wikipedia must differentiate between primary sources such as Elan Vital making statements about themselves, and primary sources such as the UK Register of Charities. The existence or not of a charity in the UK is defined by its existence in the UK Register of Charities.  Whereas a statement by Elan Vital about themselves clearly does need to be verified by an independent reliable source, the UK Register of Charities is not only a primary source, it is the reliable source for information on the formation and dissolution of charities in the UK. --John Brauns (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should it matter to the reader that the DLM UK was removed from the charity register in 1995, because it had "ceased to exist" at some unspecified point prior? For it to matter, we'd need secondary sources saying that the DLM operated in the UK, under the DLM name, until 1995. But if we have such sources, then we have no need to cite the Charity Commission's primary source. If on the other hand there aren't any such sources, it may mean that the defunct UK DLM remained in the register for 10 years, until finally someone bothered to remove it. This, by the way, is exactly the point that Will raised earlier. In that case, it would be profoundly misleading for us to state that use of the DLM name (by Rawat or Mataji) continued in the UK until 1995 – it would be an instance of original (and faulty) research, precisely what WP policy is designed to prevent. A related question is: what is so important about this particular DLM organisation that was stricken from the UK charity register in 1995? Was it of major importance? Similar organisations existed in dozens of other countries, on several continents. Why single out this UK organisation if there is no trace of it, and the use of its name through the 90s, in the secondary literature?
 * What all of this illustrates though is why articles should be based on secondary sources. You may feel you know more, or better, than the secondary sources, but that cannot be a criterion. Rawat's students may also think that they know better than many secondary sources, which from their perspective are all biased, miss the real nature of the phenomenon, and often get the most basic facts wrong. If I know something that a reliable source has missed or misrepresented, the thing for me to do is to find a secondary source that agrees with me, and try to convince other editors that what it says is the result of superior research: it is not generally to look for a primary source like this Charity Commission document that can be construed as backing me up. In Wikipedia, we commit to reflecting what secondary sources – the best and most reputable of them – have to say. On your website, you are not bound by such restrictions, because your website has a completely different purpose, but here such restrictions apply, as reiterated by the arbitration committee a couple of months ago:
 * 1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, or political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (Primary source analysis, such as saying that the movement continued to use the DLM name in the UK until 1995, or that 1995 marks an "important end point", is original research and prohibited.)
 * 2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ("Reflect, and not distort" – this means we are not allowed to improve on the views expressed in the best sources.)
 * 3) The requirement of the neutral point of view 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 synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (To me the "best and most reputable sources" are, above all, scholarly sources, though Will for example sets greater store by journalistic sources than I do.)
 * 5) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But I am probably talking to myself again by now. ;) Cheers,  JN 466  23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * JN, I was using the UK Register of Charities as an example to illustrate my point about the difference between different types of primary sources. I could have equally have used the Colorado government website about the US DLM change of name to Elan Vital to illustrate my point - some things are facts, that are supported by specific types of primary sources.  BTW, I continued to make monthly donations to DLM, UK, until well after its closure in 1995 (and I have the bank statements to prove it) so it certainly wasn't defunct for 10 years.  I know I can't use this original research in the article, but neither can you use your assumption that DLM was defunct.  --John Brauns (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Facts are facts, but the weight we give them should reflect the weight given them in the best and most reputable sources. That's a fundamental of WP:NPOV. WP is not for propagating "interesting" facts that the entire literature has seen fit to ignore. Sorry.  JN 466  10:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this lingering dispute is over a small detail. Let's move forward with the basic reorganization that was original proposed, and save for later the fine points of when the DLM in UK became or was replaced by the EV, etc. Let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Will Beback   talk    23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Movements version 3.
• The family rift was followed by a schizm within the global Divine Light Mission. In 1978 a court-ordered settlement confirmed the eldest Rawat brother (Satya Pal, also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji, now Satpal Maharaj) in the leadership role of the Indian DLM, while the youngest brother (Prem Pal) retained the DLM following outside of India. In 1983 the US Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and this progressively became the corporate name of the organisations that supported Prem Rawat. In India, Satpal Maharaj (previously known as Bal Bhagwan Ji) founded two new entities  Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti and Manav Sewa Dal, the latter being registered in 1985. M.U.S.S and M.S.D became vehicles by which Satpal Maharaj has promoted his ideas and supported “disseminating the practical knowledge of the soul”. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*Btw, reading that Daily Excelsior article, you never knew it was Satpal exploding the peace bomb in Delhi back in 1970, did ya? -- JN 466  14:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that schism is thus spelt.
 * Please let us cite, p. 54 following, when we introduce MUSS, so we have a secondary source for it.
 * The existence and purpose of Manav Sewa Dal can be sourced to this article in the Daily Excelsior. I would rather not source article content to primary sources like the Manav Dharam website. (I propose adding the Manav Dharam website as an external link at the end of the article though.)
 * I can live with citing the renaming of DLM US to a primary source in this case, as it's more precise, but we should add a secondary source talking about Elan Vital replacing DLM.  JN 466  13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are no other objections then let's move forward with this.   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here a rewrite with the secondary sources:

-- JN 466  00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is still not there. For a start, if we were to insert it at the end of the "Marriage and rift" section, it would duplicate material we already have in "Westernization" and "DLM in India".  JN 466  12:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever happened to this proposal - is it abandoned?   Will Beback    talk    18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was very politely awaiting to see what might be achieved in mediation before pressing on with this. Although if Jayen's objection holds we'll never be able to change anything except by a single global edit, rather than a series of small steps. The point of this proposed edit was to start a rolling improvement but that would allways involve some degree of mismatch between the improved setions and the unimproved sections. Does this now go to mediation as a seperate issue ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never followed this thread closely, but if you think it's an important point and consensus is difficualt to achieve then mediation would be a good mechanism to settle the matter.   Will Beback    talk    19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Divine Light Mission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://rongeaves.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514022036/http://www.rajvidyakender.org:80/aboutus.html to http://www.rajvidyakender.org/aboutus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Divine Light Mission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vOUuSORm?url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:244698 to http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:244698

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)